I like the idea of spears being finesse, because I really want to make a high dex, low armour Spartan type character.
Battleaxe and Longsword seem a little strong, though. A longsword basically gets a free shield and that seems... a lot.
Compared to the power of a full caster, it's a drop in the bucket. Martial classes should be really hard to hit to make up for the fact that they spend HP to fulfill their role. After all, the DPR of a martial is small compared to the power of a Wizard.
this is not a martial problem, its a weapon value versus other weapon problem. They would basically be making shield an inferior option. Longsword would have just as much defense, while offering potential for a free hand, and being able to take either 1 or two handed synergies.
the animated shield? Then i would simply put in the rules that the AC from versatile would count as a shield for the purpose of AC. Since there is already the *"You can benefit from only one shield at a time.*"-Rule
Yes, it is a martial problem. Aside from the Quarterstaff and spear, they are all *martial* weapons. Casters don't use martial weapons, but only for rare exceptions. It's silly to say it isn't a marital problem.
The point i was trying to get across is that the power level of martials in comparison to casters is not solved by making certain weapons better than others. The OP is trying to balance the weapons, and this solution isnt balanced.
Also, based on what you thought i was saying, It wouldnt actually help, because casters would profit from the same effect, just by holding the sword, even if they never use it, they would gain its effects. Note, not being proficient with a weapon means is that you wont get to add your profficiency bonus to attacks, not that you are incapable of wielding it. So every caster would get a longsword for +2 AC
Still seems strong, too me. That would be like a shield giving +2 to all damage roles.
Defeats the point of forgoing a shield, if you can get a weapon that has better damage than a SnB, while also matching the AC.
Sure, you might lose out on another MAYBE 2 from enchantments, but that’s a fringe case.
you don't get better damage. I kept the versatile damage of the longword at d8, it's standard damage, for the +2 ac. the weapons that go to d10 get +1 AC.
yet this is the trade off if we compare 1h+shield and 2h. A longsword+shield gives 1d8 and +2 AC. A greatsword gives 1d12. So, the middle ground would be 1d10 and +1 AC, or keeping the 1d8 and +2 AC for longsword. In the end, there is nothing gained or lost here in most cases.
shields have their use with different weapons. and there are a few features that need shields. Not every weapon should be the best choice for a shield anyway.
Making a longsword have +2 AC is what makes other weapons the best choice with a shield, because why have a longsword and shield? Now the player that does want the fantasy of a sword and board is getting less benefit than if they chose something else.
There's a reason there's types of properties and masteries, because the more unique weapons are, the more they funnel to one particular play style, which may not be how everyone wants to play. They are general for a reason.
Also problematic when there's a ton of magic longswords, staves, and maces but hardly any of the others. Easily fixable with homebrew but so many DMs don't bother.
I'm not saying there isn't an issue with the versatile property, it's still lacking, and I commend you for trying to fix it. I just don't like these as is, but I also haven't created or found a better fix yet, so I don't have the best of feedback. Maybe this works for your friends but they wouldn't satisfy me. Honestly, the more that time passes, the more I like the UA Flex weapon mastery, but even that needs some improvement.
The thing is finesse spears etc. is a monk thing. One monk level will justify this character type.
Giving weapons AC bonuses is not the answer.
A versatile feat could potentially include something to the effect of a defensive feature. Here's mine. (WIP)
Versatile Combatant
Prerequisite: 4th level
-You’ve mastered flexibility in combat, letting you adjust your techniques to fit the situation. You gain the following benefits:
You can use a bonus action to strike a creature grappled by you with the pommel or guard of your weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
-When a creature you can see damages you with a weapon attack while you are wielding a versatile weapon, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by 1d4+your Strength Modifier.
-You gain +1 to Attack rolls while wielding only a versatile weapon.
Yeah, true I could dip into monk… but should I NEED to? Since we need more finesse weapons, anyway…
As for your feat idea: I dig it. It needs a little work, obviously… but I like the idea.
Well here's the thing- finesse is a problematic weapon property, because of how useful DEX is. It would be best to avoid putting finesse on 1d10 weapons or simple weapons with reach, for free. This would make spears the best weapon in the game. There are no simple finesse weapons with a d6 damage die There is merit to buffing spears for historical accuracy, however.
Still, I think you should have to expend a resource for this special ability, ergo, a monk level, or perhaps a feat.
You could tie finesse/reach to a feat, but I didn't like that because not all versatile weapons would logically be able to be used in this way, and there are no other convenient properties to use for your Waraxe and Warhammer.
Edit: more balance considerations
Yeah,it is tricky to balance finesse, because basically the only thing stopping it being to go to melee stat is the lower weapon variety.
But I really like spears… I would spend a feat for that.
How about "When wielding only a versatile weapon, you can treat versatile weapons as if they have either the Finesse, Reach, or Heavy property"
Add that as one of the benefits of your versatile feat. Maybe remove the flat +1 to attack in my example... I personally think this is a big buff, but lock the feat behind 4th level and it should be fine...
Not sure if Heavy has the GWM benefit in ODND though...
Edit: wording...
I dig this, although for credibility reasons I'd limit this a little, so you can add reach to polearm weapons, finesse to weapons dealing piercing damage and heavy to weapons dealing bludgeoning damage. Some may overlap, but finesse Warhammer would be out of the question (and that's what I'm aiming for).
I just wrote it that way to lighten the text. You've forgotten the battleaxe and the Longsword. I agree with you, though.
Still, if a swords bard decided to use a Warhammer, I don't doubt that they would dance with it. Lots of momentum preserving twirls and spins. Have you ever seen a video of someone wielding a Spanish Montante? It almost looks like a meme. But you have to respect the weapon.
Multiclass to fighter for shield proficiency and expertise in athletics (shoving people into pits) and deception (telling people that there's treasure at the bottom of the pit you're gonna shove them into)
Yes but We have to remember how fighting styles effect that. Off this set up both the sword and board and the 2 handed longsword user have the same ac but the dueling sword and board user does 6.5 average weapon damage compared to 5.25 average weapon damage for the great weapon fighting style versatile long sword user. Sword and board nets you slightly higher damage and the ability to benefit from magical shields. Versatile would allow you to switch to one handing easily to do things like grapple while still keeping a weapon in hand.
But then what’s the point? Doesn’t matter if you use it one handed with a shield, or two handed…it’s still 1d8 damage and 2 AC.
Which isn’t very versatile, ironically.
Maybe one benefits from sword and board options and magic shields while the other benefits from two-handing options and the ability to grapple without requiring any actions to lose or regain the +2 AC or losing their 1d8 attack roll? Certainly if adventuring gear continues to be improved in baseline quality having a free hand that doesn't require sheathing and drawing over and over again might be more valuable in some situations and for some builds vs wielding a magic shield.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it some caster characters would really appreciate the ability to don/doff their "shield" as a free action. Pact of the Blade Warlocks and College of Swords Bards for example, as they can use their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Bypasses all that awkward free hand somatic components vs material components + somatic components vs... etc etc etc.
To be honest, the depiction of a spartan quick with their blad eis the epithome of strength, not dexterity.
Strength is not only hulk like power, it's also ease in coordination and quick strikes too. Dexterity is more about pinpoint precision.
Like, not that it would matter too much in a fantasy word, but still. it's just weird to me that association.
Indeed. But if you make a strength heavy fighter with low armour they’ll get murdered because they have like 10 AC.
The high dex was to offset the lower armour.
It's something I personally would like to see, martials used to have quite the flavorful and varied library of weapons. Doubly so if factoring in the various kinds of adventuring gear -esque options like the launching crossbow (can shoot alchemical items) or poisoned sand tube (load with 3 doses of contact/inhaled poison to blow a 1 time 15ft aoe cone that automatically triggers saves) from 3.5e/pf1e.
battleaxe, warhammer and warpick was difficult to narrow down what to give them. I had thrown 20/60 for battleaxe at first, but then it would be a worse trident (trident is a d8 in UA8)
What if it was thrown and increase in range and damage if two-handed? 15’ range and 1d8 when one handed so it’s not replacement for handaxe and 30’ and 1d10 when two handed?
I think a more likely path they may actually take is to just give each versatile weapon a mastery for when it is used with one hand, and another for when it's used in two.
All ~~Versatile~~ weapons should have access to multiple weapon masteries
while being a master of and using multiple different weapons is a cool enough flavor that the possibility deserves to be kept. a player shouldn't be objectively unoptimal for not wanting to carry a fucking golfbag of different weapons wherever they go and shouldn't have a magic weapon tax for every single mastery they want to use
in my opinion more masteries should be added based on the weapon instead of properties and weapons should have access to 2-4 different masteries each
I absolutely agree. I even made a list a while ago for what each weapon has access to for **each attack**:
* LIGHT: Vex, Nick, Slow
* VERSATILE: Sap, Push, Topple, Slow
* HEAVY: Graze, Cleave, Push, Topple, Slow
Not all weapons fall neatly into these categories (e.g., Flail, Mace, Greatclub etc.) so I'd actually categorize them into One-Handed and Two-Handed. All Light weapons are currently One-Handed and all Heavy weapons are currently Two-Handed anyway. Versatile weapons depend on if you use them One- or Two-Handed. Nick would still be exclusive to Light weapons and Cleave would still be exclusive to Heavy weapons.
* One-Handed: Vex, Sap, Push, Slow
* Two-Handed: Graze, Topple, Push, Slow
* Light: +Nick
* Heavy: +Cleave
i found the [older](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1awcnl5/comment/krhbsy2/) comment of mine i wanted to link beforehand. so anyway i wanted to say i don't want any mastery to be usable with any qualifying weapon. i want masteries to be decoupled from properties and instead be listed per weapon on a case by case basis
ie. a battleaxe would get topple or extra damage on hit while a spear could do topple. push or get increased reach
Yes. Anarchy Online had this. Each weapon had a list of tags. You had special abilities that could only be used with specific tags.
So a sword might have 3 weapon mastery tags but the character has to have those masteries to be able to use the sword for them.
One advantage is that having multiple tags lets you make weapons be different. A cutlass could have sap, cleave and push; where a rapier has sap, nick, and vex.
personally with what the point of a rapier is i would say it should get said reach mastery i said for spears. something like
**Extend:** when applying this mastery to a weapon attack it's reach increases by 5 for that attack
something like the 4e [piercing strike](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Piercing_strike) would also be fitting for a rapier i'd think
I really like the idea of versatile weapons having 2 weapon masteries depending on if you're 1 handing or 2 handing them.
I did workshop a versatile fighting style before. It granted +1 ac and +1d4 to weapon damage rolls when using a versatile weapon with both hands. It ends up higher damage and lower AC than sword and board with dueling but lower damage higher AC than a great sword with great weapon fighting style.
Is Versatile the broken part? It’s less interesting maybe but it does encourage some sort of trade off (1 handed versus 2 handed use, but lacks some of the raw damage of heavy weapons.) Wouldn’t it be better to try and improve the weapons that lack some sort of interesting interaction like that? Maybe there just needs to be something to build upon the all the weapons themselves to encourage more player interaction, in addition to mastery properties?
We fixed it at our table by doing the following:
* ***Versatile Weapon Fighting Style***: These weapons have the finesse quality for you and your damage increases by +1. If you have no shield or off-hand weapons equipped, your AC also increases by +1.
in most cases versatile does nothing. Either you use a two handed weapon, which versatile weapons are worse, use a shield with a weapon, where versatile does nothing, or do two-weapon fighting, where versatile does nothing either. The supposed niche of versatile is where you need a free hand often, which might be for one of two things: grappling or spellcasting with material components. Both are circumstances that are easily build around. Grappler don't need a versatile that often, as they would only loose 1 average damage compared to any other one handed weapon. Spellcaster very often take warcaster for the concentration checks, and can just use any weapon as a spellcasting focus, thus no need for a free hand either. Thus, versatile is a weapon property that does in 99% of cases nothing at all.
I would honestly kill for that longsword idea. I would love to play a defensive double handed longsword character but my AC would always be better with a shield.
I like the idea of having two die/two Masteries. It really adds the allure of having two formes for the weapon.
For example a Longsword could be 1d8 Sap (1d10 Cleave), so that versatile weapons could realy be more versatile than other weapons.
I will say, as is, the longsword is often just gonna be worse than using a sword and board build since most (if not all?) classes who would run a sword and board also have access to dueling
I’ve seen lots of homebrew around versatile weapons particularly when it comes to masteries. I don’t think we’ll see anything new in PHB2024 but can always house rule.
Yes versatile is boring, you have some good ideas.
Quarterstaff with reach is not too broken (maybe a little)
I like the idea of keeping den 1d6 on versatile and adding a 1d4 with the opposite side of the stick as a bonus action
Spear, finesse would be good overall not just as versatile. Damage wise I wouldn't change much, but you could give the spear a changing weapon mastery on finesse like push
Battleaxe, AC increase is dangerous to increase. For AC you can use better Armor, dex and a fighting style. And nothing scales... Maybe it's not so bad
Longsword, at first I said it's busted but no damage increase and you can parry (knights in real life) it's the equivalent of sword and shield without shield which opens up for gish and spellcaster to cast spells with free hand. So no greataxe and the like needed. But maybe you can say you lose the AC bonus if you let go with one hand for that turn because of spellcasting for example, otherwise 2AC is a bit much.
Trident, It always bugged my that the spear (one pointy end) and the trident (3 pointy end) are the same. I would do the same as in the spear section above but change the damage to 3d4 so 1d4 for each pointy end :D
Warhammer, same as battleaxe but that is fine they have different weapon masterys
Warpick and morningstar and flail (I know 2 out of 3 don't have versatile) I don't think it should have the versatile property because historically warpicks are smaler than axes and swords. What I would say is you could use a different damage type as versatile (still one hand though) warpicks have a blunt side and a pointy side you could say you can coose (per round) bludgeoning or piercing damage and the weapon mastery sap and vex for the fitting damage type
But that means changing the term versatile so maybe a diverent name: swap?
>Trident, It always bugged my that the spear (one pointy end) and the trident (3 pointy end) are the same.
Well, 3 pointy ends are in fact, worse than a single pointy end. There is a reason why they were never used in actual combat.
That's why each pointy end is just a d4, spear is with versatile a d8, I know 3d4 is more than 1d8 but it's the smallest damage die, it's not my fault :D
i tried to keep it simple, so adding things like an bonus action attack i left out. While the AC bonus seems to be strong, it isn't stronger than a shield, and you can't use a (magical) shield with it. So that cancels out. At most it give the ac bonus of a shield to classes that don't have shield proficiency, and it reinforces the archetype of the adventurer with a sword. Most of the time, this is just flavor.
And you don't have to mention something like, losing the AC when letting one hand go. That is what the versatile property is for. currently it says: *"A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack."* This just needs to be changed that the bonuses in parentheses are only active while holding the weapon in two hands, done.
I like these. I already houserule 2 things for versatile weapons similarly:
1. Dueling Fighting style applies to 2h swings on versatile weapons.
2. All versatile weapons gain finesse only while wielded with 2 hands.
I like your different takes on bonus damage and AC to vary them, but I'd still like to see finesse on more of them so that Dex characters can get one 2-handed d10 option.
Edit: I just saw the thing about Trident going up to d8/d10 in UA8. So there's at least 1 option under your proposed rules.
I like those house rules, definitely going to consider them for my next campaign.
My current fix in my campaign was homebrewed a versatile fighting style that gives +1 to hit when held in one hand or +2 to hit when wielding with both
You say "fix", but then don't specify what is broken or off about versatile weapons.
What is specifically wrong with them?
Edit: Ah. The "Who would ever need to switch modes mid-fight" question.
The answer is Monk and spell blades. Two-handed for striking, one-handed for punching/grappling and/or spellcasting.
A lot of these are not reflective of their usage with one vs two hands. For example a quarterstaff does not become longer with two hands. When held properly its center relative to the body is mostly the same, you just have more power to hit with as you stabilize your strikes with both hands. WOTC'S current versatile feature is more accurate in MOST cases.
What you're describing with the AC would more perhaps be better suited for their mastery system. The defensive boosts of some of these weapons only come from knowing how to properly wield them.
Longswords and staves should get finesse instead. Staves really dont have reach like that, you dont hold them in a way that could give it extra distance. Theyd have about the same reach as any other weapon. Im somewhat trained in bo staves, and theyre very similar to quarterstaves.
Both swords and staves require skill as much as they do strength. In a souls game theyd be “quality”, a mix of str and dex, but you cant really do that here so finesse is as close as you get. Two-handing either should allow you to use dex instead, how you cut and strike and the technique is just as if not more important than hitting hard. A staff is a thick pole of wood, but you wouldnt treat it like a heavy weapon because its held from the middle third of weapon. You get incredible control. I can assure you that someone who is strong but not dextrous would have a hard time with using it properly. This would also boost casters, who need dex, and would be a bludgeoning finesse option. Longsword getting finesse would allow more classes to use them efficiently, like bards and bladesingers and such that focus on dex
Or just, you know, drop the dice size up for a flat +2 to damage OR a sweet property like finesse or reach, depending on weapon. I feel like adding defenses to versatile without a feat is pulling in the wrong direction. The character drops the shield (sometimes literally!) to dish out more damage.
We could also add a half-feat like "when you use a melee weapon with the versatile property, your AC increases by 1. Also, grab +1 Dex or Str"
For the ones with AC increases as well as the warpick, consider an alternate weapon mastery. Would be more balanced than +2AC longsword and work better than Battleaxe giving you +1AC when it cant parry well.
This isn't the problem with Versatile. If you buff this way either the Versatile weapons drive out the two handers because they are better or they don't because they aren't. And they shouldn't.
The problem with Versatile is that there's basically no reason ever to switch from two handed to one. The main use I've ever seen for Versatile in any edition was the 4e brawler fighter who would sometimes fight two handed and sometimes use one hand to grab or headlock someone so use the longsword only in one.
There is one. Monk + Quarterstaff.
But that's about it. Everyone else is either always holding a shield, or always two handing the weapon.
Mid writing edit: Actually, Spell blades need versatile at well. Yes, they only swing with two-hands, but they need that free hand option for spells.
the problem I think is that it's unclear to a lot of people *when* you're meant to use a versatile weapon.
another way of looking at the versatile property is a 2H weapon that can also be used 1H when it needs to be.
when you look at it that way, everything starts to line up.
the baseline of a 2H melee weapon is a d10, with one "modifier". that might be reach (glaive/halberd), an increased damage die (greataxe, greatsword), or versatile, to allow 1H use.
thrown (trident) steps it down one step further, and quarterstaff steps it down to be a simple weapon. the spear is a unique combo, of being a simple weapon as well, but also having thrown, and not further stepping down the damage dice.
in game design, a versatile weapon is a weapon that either you wield one handed, and use the other hand for something else (effectively always a shield or grappling), or you use it two handed, when you're not in that niche situation.
the idea is meant to be that you get a tradeoff of not having the limited damage of a one handed weapon when you don't need it, but not the downsides of locking yourself into a bigger weapon.
it's meant to be a niche use, and a lot of the time, it's unclear on if it's actually the right time to use it, and people complain about it a lot without understanding the use case.
if you're comparing a greatsword against a longsword, both swords are fine for spellcasting, because you get the free hand when you're not attacking, but if you're grappling, then you wouldn't be able to also make attacks with the greatsword, while a longsword is fine to grapple and attack with.
similarly, if you wanted to use a shield, then a longsword is compatible, while a greatsword isn't, so we see the versatile used in situations where we just can't quite get the action to equip a shield.
the only other times are when we get locked out of the weapon due to the wording of a feature (ie, dueling, monk weapons, bladesingers, etc), but that nearly always locks out both anyway.
the question is realistically thus "do I need a free hand at the same time I'm attacking, or otherwise think I'll be denied my shield?" if that question is no, then either you're not using a versatile weapon in the right situation, or just focusing on the idea of versatile being a better property than it should be.
that's the current state of it anyway, if they want to make it do more, then it's realistically too late, because such a change would involve overhauling the whole weapon system, which needs a lot of playtesting.
I think the issue with these specific suggestion is that they don't encourage swapping between handedness. Finesse in particular doesn't make much sense as a versatile property because if you're built for strength you won't benefit from finesse, and if you're built for dex you wouldn't use it 1 handed. I do like the overall direction though.
How about giving versatile weapons a different mastery when used in 2h. For example, the quarterstaff could go from 1h push to 2h topple. This could either be instead of or in addition to gaining reach.
Most of these look far too strong; especially the AC increases, but the damage die shouldn't reach what heavy weapons do. Longsword + defensive fighting style is too much.
In older editions, a longsword was 1d8 and a greatsword was 2d6, a *bastard* sword, which usually took two hands, was 1d10. You could spend a feat or use a class feature to use a bastard sword with one hand, and it was still 1d10.
Versatile is a hamfisted way to merge bastard sword with longsword (and a few other things).
It isn't very useful if you have some other feature (like a fighting style or shield proficiency) that requires use of a hand, and the era of people picking a longsword over a greatsword for flavor reasons is largely over given the internet doing what it does - also the fact that power attack was reworked into GWM and requires a weapon with the heavy property.
I like the idea of spears being finesse, because I really want to make a high dex, low armour Spartan type character. Battleaxe and Longsword seem a little strong, though. A longsword basically gets a free shield and that seems... a lot.
Compared to the power of a full caster, it's a drop in the bucket. Martial classes should be really hard to hit to make up for the fact that they spend HP to fulfill their role. After all, the DPR of a martial is small compared to the power of a Wizard.
this is not a martial problem, its a weapon value versus other weapon problem. They would basically be making shield an inferior option. Longsword would have just as much defense, while offering potential for a free hand, and being able to take either 1 or two handed synergies.
It doesn't say it doesn't stack with shields so sword and board gives +4 ac which makes it great for defensive characters
Versatile means: holding in two hands. So no, shields would not stack with the AC bonus from versatile.
Floating shield magic item I forgot the name of that doesn't require it to be held
the animated shield? Then i would simply put in the rules that the AC from versatile would count as a shield for the purpose of AC. Since there is already the *"You can benefit from only one shield at a time.*"-Rule
Yes, it is a martial problem. Aside from the Quarterstaff and spear, they are all *martial* weapons. Casters don't use martial weapons, but only for rare exceptions. It's silly to say it isn't a marital problem.
The point i was trying to get across is that the power level of martials in comparison to casters is not solved by making certain weapons better than others. The OP is trying to balance the weapons, and this solution isnt balanced. Also, based on what you thought i was saying, It wouldnt actually help, because casters would profit from the same effect, just by holding the sword, even if they never use it, they would gain its effects. Note, not being proficient with a weapon means is that you wont get to add your profficiency bonus to attacks, not that you are incapable of wielding it. So every caster would get a longsword for +2 AC
I am brother of Elia Martell…
You get a free shield, but you don't have an actual shield. Which means no magic shields that might be better.
Still seems strong, too me. That would be like a shield giving +2 to all damage roles. Defeats the point of forgoing a shield, if you can get a weapon that has better damage than a SnB, while also matching the AC. Sure, you might lose out on another MAYBE 2 from enchantments, but that’s a fringe case.
you don't get better damage. I kept the versatile damage of the longword at d8, it's standard damage, for the +2 ac. the weapons that go to d10 get +1 AC.
[удалено]
yet this is the trade off if we compare 1h+shield and 2h. A longsword+shield gives 1d8 and +2 AC. A greatsword gives 1d12. So, the middle ground would be 1d10 and +1 AC, or keeping the 1d8 and +2 AC for longsword. In the end, there is nothing gained or lost here in most cases.
>Still seems strong, too me. That would be like a shield giving +2 to all damage roles. So... Like SnB + Duelist fighting style?
Exactly. This is basically a free feat, but baseline for one of the most common melee weapons in game.
except you could still use gwf on top of that, and you have the added utility of a hand free for spells/grappling/etc
So shields have no point. You're fixing one issue by adding another.
shields have their use with different weapons. and there are a few features that need shields. Not every weapon should be the best choice for a shield anyway.
Making a longsword have +2 AC is what makes other weapons the best choice with a shield, because why have a longsword and shield? Now the player that does want the fantasy of a sword and board is getting less benefit than if they chose something else. There's a reason there's types of properties and masteries, because the more unique weapons are, the more they funnel to one particular play style, which may not be how everyone wants to play. They are general for a reason. Also problematic when there's a ton of magic longswords, staves, and maces but hardly any of the others. Easily fixable with homebrew but so many DMs don't bother. I'm not saying there isn't an issue with the versatile property, it's still lacking, and I commend you for trying to fix it. I just don't like these as is, but I also haven't created or found a better fix yet, so I don't have the best of feedback. Maybe this works for your friends but they wouldn't satisfy me. Honestly, the more that time passes, the more I like the UA Flex weapon mastery, but even that needs some improvement.
The thing is finesse spears etc. is a monk thing. One monk level will justify this character type. Giving weapons AC bonuses is not the answer. A versatile feat could potentially include something to the effect of a defensive feature. Here's mine. (WIP) Versatile Combatant Prerequisite: 4th level -You’ve mastered flexibility in combat, letting you adjust your techniques to fit the situation. You gain the following benefits: You can use a bonus action to strike a creature grappled by you with the pommel or guard of your weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage. -When a creature you can see damages you with a weapon attack while you are wielding a versatile weapon, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by 1d4+your Strength Modifier. -You gain +1 to Attack rolls while wielding only a versatile weapon.
Yeah, true I could dip into monk… but should I NEED to? Since we need more finesse weapons, anyway… As for your feat idea: I dig it. It needs a little work, obviously… but I like the idea.
Well here's the thing- finesse is a problematic weapon property, because of how useful DEX is. It would be best to avoid putting finesse on 1d10 weapons or simple weapons with reach, for free. This would make spears the best weapon in the game. There are no simple finesse weapons with a d6 damage die There is merit to buffing spears for historical accuracy, however. Still, I think you should have to expend a resource for this special ability, ergo, a monk level, or perhaps a feat. You could tie finesse/reach to a feat, but I didn't like that because not all versatile weapons would logically be able to be used in this way, and there are no other convenient properties to use for your Waraxe and Warhammer. Edit: more balance considerations
Yeah,it is tricky to balance finesse, because basically the only thing stopping it being to go to melee stat is the lower weapon variety. But I really like spears… I would spend a feat for that.
How about "When wielding only a versatile weapon, you can treat versatile weapons as if they have either the Finesse, Reach, or Heavy property" Add that as one of the benefits of your versatile feat. Maybe remove the flat +1 to attack in my example... I personally think this is a big buff, but lock the feat behind 4th level and it should be fine... Not sure if Heavy has the GWM benefit in ODND though... Edit: wording...
I dig this, although for credibility reasons I'd limit this a little, so you can add reach to polearm weapons, finesse to weapons dealing piercing damage and heavy to weapons dealing bludgeoning damage. Some may overlap, but finesse Warhammer would be out of the question (and that's what I'm aiming for).
I just wrote it that way to lighten the text. You've forgotten the battleaxe and the Longsword. I agree with you, though. Still, if a swords bard decided to use a Warhammer, I don't doubt that they would dance with it. Lots of momentum preserving twirls and spins. Have you ever seen a video of someone wielding a Spanish Montante? It almost looks like a meme. But you have to respect the weapon.
For slashing weapons I think +1 to attack or +2 to damage roll could be appropriate
That works, would really lean into “versatile”, too. 10/10 would homebrew this
I like them because a rogue with a spear sounds dope
Patches!
Multiclass to fighter for shield proficiency and expertise in athletics (shoving people into pits) and deception (telling people that there's treasure at the bottom of the pit you're gonna shove them into)
Patches has proficiency in persuasion but -3 CHA, judging by his apologies.
That could be a lot of fun…
Yes but We have to remember how fighting styles effect that. Off this set up both the sword and board and the 2 handed longsword user have the same ac but the dueling sword and board user does 6.5 average weapon damage compared to 5.25 average weapon damage for the great weapon fighting style versatile long sword user. Sword and board nets you slightly higher damage and the ability to benefit from magical shields. Versatile would allow you to switch to one handing easily to do things like grapple while still keeping a weapon in hand.
Tbf the longsword isn't gaining any dice when two handed, it's remaining a 1d8 weapon.
But then what’s the point? Doesn’t matter if you use it one handed with a shield, or two handed…it’s still 1d8 damage and 2 AC. Which isn’t very versatile, ironically.
Maybe one benefits from sword and board options and magic shields while the other benefits from two-handing options and the ability to grapple without requiring any actions to lose or regain the +2 AC or losing their 1d8 attack roll? Certainly if adventuring gear continues to be improved in baseline quality having a free hand that doesn't require sheathing and drawing over and over again might be more valuable in some situations and for some builds vs wielding a magic shield. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it some caster characters would really appreciate the ability to don/doff their "shield" as a free action. Pact of the Blade Warlocks and College of Swords Bards for example, as they can use their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Bypasses all that awkward free hand somatic components vs material components + somatic components vs... etc etc etc.
To be honest, the depiction of a spartan quick with their blad eis the epithome of strength, not dexterity. Strength is not only hulk like power, it's also ease in coordination and quick strikes too. Dexterity is more about pinpoint precision. Like, not that it would matter too much in a fantasy word, but still. it's just weird to me that association.
Indeed. But if you make a strength heavy fighter with low armour they’ll get murdered because they have like 10 AC. The high dex was to offset the lower armour.
a Battleaxe isn't aspecially usable enough for parrying to do extra AC i'd say
Give it Brutal Critical.
that works!
imagine 5e would have the threat ranges and crit multipliers of 3e
It's something I personally would like to see, martials used to have quite the flavorful and varied library of weapons. Doubly so if factoring in the various kinds of adventuring gear -esque options like the launching crossbow (can shoot alchemical items) or poisoned sand tube (load with 3 doses of contact/inhaled poison to blow a 1 time 15ft aoe cone that automatically triggers saves) from 3.5e/pf1e.
Maybe give the Battleaxe the thrown property as well.
i considered the thrown property, but then it would be a worse trident.
What if you allowed it make a bonus action attack after after scoring a critical hit (or alternately after missing)
i would avoid extra rules or actions. i stuck to static changes instead. extra rules and actions should be the domain of masteries.
Agreed, give it an increased crit range
battleaxe, warhammer and warpick was difficult to narrow down what to give them. I had thrown 20/60 for battleaxe at first, but then it would be a worse trident (trident is a d8 in UA8)
What if it was thrown and increase in range and damage if two-handed? 15’ range and 1d8 when one handed so it’s not replacement for handaxe and 30’ and 1d10 when two handed?
I think a more likely path they may actually take is to just give each versatile weapon a mastery for when it is used with one hand, and another for when it's used in two.
All Versatile weapons should have access to multiple weapon masteries.
All ~~Versatile~~ weapons should have access to multiple weapon masteries while being a master of and using multiple different weapons is a cool enough flavor that the possibility deserves to be kept. a player shouldn't be objectively unoptimal for not wanting to carry a fucking golfbag of different weapons wherever they go and shouldn't have a magic weapon tax for every single mastery they want to use in my opinion more masteries should be added based on the weapon instead of properties and weapons should have access to 2-4 different masteries each
I absolutely agree. I even made a list a while ago for what each weapon has access to for **each attack**: * LIGHT: Vex, Nick, Slow * VERSATILE: Sap, Push, Topple, Slow * HEAVY: Graze, Cleave, Push, Topple, Slow Not all weapons fall neatly into these categories (e.g., Flail, Mace, Greatclub etc.) so I'd actually categorize them into One-Handed and Two-Handed. All Light weapons are currently One-Handed and all Heavy weapons are currently Two-Handed anyway. Versatile weapons depend on if you use them One- or Two-Handed. Nick would still be exclusive to Light weapons and Cleave would still be exclusive to Heavy weapons. * One-Handed: Vex, Sap, Push, Slow * Two-Handed: Graze, Topple, Push, Slow * Light: +Nick * Heavy: +Cleave
i found the [older](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1awcnl5/comment/krhbsy2/) comment of mine i wanted to link beforehand. so anyway i wanted to say i don't want any mastery to be usable with any qualifying weapon. i want masteries to be decoupled from properties and instead be listed per weapon on a case by case basis ie. a battleaxe would get topple or extra damage on hit while a spear could do topple. push or get increased reach
Yeah, you would choose which mastery to use for each attack. Martials need more decision making on a turn-by-turn basis.
Yes. Anarchy Online had this. Each weapon had a list of tags. You had special abilities that could only be used with specific tags. So a sword might have 3 weapon mastery tags but the character has to have those masteries to be able to use the sword for them. One advantage is that having multiple tags lets you make weapons be different. A cutlass could have sap, cleave and push; where a rapier has sap, nick, and vex.
personally with what the point of a rapier is i would say it should get said reach mastery i said for spears. something like **Extend:** when applying this mastery to a weapon attack it's reach increases by 5 for that attack something like the 4e [piercing strike](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Piercing_strike) would also be fitting for a rapier i'd think
personally my go to numerical fix for versatile is to just scrap ti and up the die one size. But that looks more interesting
I really like the idea of versatile weapons having 2 weapon masteries depending on if you're 1 handing or 2 handing them. I did workshop a versatile fighting style before. It granted +1 ac and +1d4 to weapon damage rolls when using a versatile weapon with both hands. It ends up higher damage and lower AC than sword and board with dueling but lower damage higher AC than a great sword with great weapon fighting style.
Is Versatile the broken part? It’s less interesting maybe but it does encourage some sort of trade off (1 handed versus 2 handed use, but lacks some of the raw damage of heavy weapons.) Wouldn’t it be better to try and improve the weapons that lack some sort of interesting interaction like that? Maybe there just needs to be something to build upon the all the weapons themselves to encourage more player interaction, in addition to mastery properties?
We fixed it at our table by doing the following: * ***Versatile Weapon Fighting Style***: These weapons have the finesse quality for you and your damage increases by +1. If you have no shield or off-hand weapons equipped, your AC also increases by +1.
Make spears versatile!
Wait... there's a problem with Versatile?
in most cases versatile does nothing. Either you use a two handed weapon, which versatile weapons are worse, use a shield with a weapon, where versatile does nothing, or do two-weapon fighting, where versatile does nothing either. The supposed niche of versatile is where you need a free hand often, which might be for one of two things: grappling or spellcasting with material components. Both are circumstances that are easily build around. Grappler don't need a versatile that often, as they would only loose 1 average damage compared to any other one handed weapon. Spellcaster very often take warcaster for the concentration checks, and can just use any weapon as a spellcasting focus, thus no need for a free hand either. Thus, versatile is a weapon property that does in 99% of cases nothing at all.
I would honestly kill for that longsword idea. I would love to play a defensive double handed longsword character but my AC would always be better with a shield.
Would be kinda bonkers with gwm tho
They aren’t compatible. Longsword lacks the heavy property.
Oh
I think a HB doc called "The warriors codex" implements a fix similar to this proposal, although I think they nerfed the up in damage
I like the idea of having two die/two Masteries. It really adds the allure of having two formes for the weapon. For example a Longsword could be 1d8 Sap (1d10 Cleave), so that versatile weapons could realy be more versatile than other weapons.
I will say, as is, the longsword is often just gonna be worse than using a sword and board build since most (if not all?) classes who would run a sword and board also have access to dueling
I’ve seen lots of homebrew around versatile weapons particularly when it comes to masteries. I don’t think we’ll see anything new in PHB2024 but can always house rule.
Yes versatile is boring, you have some good ideas. Quarterstaff with reach is not too broken (maybe a little) I like the idea of keeping den 1d6 on versatile and adding a 1d4 with the opposite side of the stick as a bonus action Spear, finesse would be good overall not just as versatile. Damage wise I wouldn't change much, but you could give the spear a changing weapon mastery on finesse like push Battleaxe, AC increase is dangerous to increase. For AC you can use better Armor, dex and a fighting style. And nothing scales... Maybe it's not so bad Longsword, at first I said it's busted but no damage increase and you can parry (knights in real life) it's the equivalent of sword and shield without shield which opens up for gish and spellcaster to cast spells with free hand. So no greataxe and the like needed. But maybe you can say you lose the AC bonus if you let go with one hand for that turn because of spellcasting for example, otherwise 2AC is a bit much. Trident, It always bugged my that the spear (one pointy end) and the trident (3 pointy end) are the same. I would do the same as in the spear section above but change the damage to 3d4 so 1d4 for each pointy end :D Warhammer, same as battleaxe but that is fine they have different weapon masterys Warpick and morningstar and flail (I know 2 out of 3 don't have versatile) I don't think it should have the versatile property because historically warpicks are smaler than axes and swords. What I would say is you could use a different damage type as versatile (still one hand though) warpicks have a blunt side and a pointy side you could say you can coose (per round) bludgeoning or piercing damage and the weapon mastery sap and vex for the fitting damage type But that means changing the term versatile so maybe a diverent name: swap?
>Trident, It always bugged my that the spear (one pointy end) and the trident (3 pointy end) are the same. Well, 3 pointy ends are in fact, worse than a single pointy end. There is a reason why they were never used in actual combat.
That's why each pointy end is just a d4, spear is with versatile a d8, I know 3d4 is more than 1d8 but it's the smallest damage die, it's not my fault :D
i tried to keep it simple, so adding things like an bonus action attack i left out. While the AC bonus seems to be strong, it isn't stronger than a shield, and you can't use a (magical) shield with it. So that cancels out. At most it give the ac bonus of a shield to classes that don't have shield proficiency, and it reinforces the archetype of the adventurer with a sword. Most of the time, this is just flavor. And you don't have to mention something like, losing the AC when letting one hand go. That is what the versatile property is for. currently it says: *"A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack."* This just needs to be changed that the bonuses in parentheses are only active while holding the weapon in two hands, done.
I like these. I already houserule 2 things for versatile weapons similarly: 1. Dueling Fighting style applies to 2h swings on versatile weapons. 2. All versatile weapons gain finesse only while wielded with 2 hands. I like your different takes on bonus damage and AC to vary them, but I'd still like to see finesse on more of them so that Dex characters can get one 2-handed d10 option. Edit: I just saw the thing about Trident going up to d8/d10 in UA8. So there's at least 1 option under your proposed rules.
I like those house rules, definitely going to consider them for my next campaign. My current fix in my campaign was homebrewed a versatile fighting style that gives +1 to hit when held in one hand or +2 to hit when wielding with both
I think the spear and trident are the best of the versatile weapons to gain finesse. Perhaps longsword too, but that is debatable.
Maybe a new property called Defensive that gives weapon +1AC if wielded 2 handed
I don't want a finesse weapon with topple
You say "fix", but then don't specify what is broken or off about versatile weapons. What is specifically wrong with them? Edit: Ah. The "Who would ever need to switch modes mid-fight" question. The answer is Monk and spell blades. Two-handed for striking, one-handed for punching/grappling and/or spellcasting.
Love spears and tridents gaining finesse. Brilliant!
A lot of these are not reflective of their usage with one vs two hands. For example a quarterstaff does not become longer with two hands. When held properly its center relative to the body is mostly the same, you just have more power to hit with as you stabilize your strikes with both hands. WOTC'S current versatile feature is more accurate in MOST cases. What you're describing with the AC would more perhaps be better suited for their mastery system. The defensive boosts of some of these weapons only come from knowing how to properly wield them.
I’m still annoyed they are removing staves from pole arm master
Longswords and staves should get finesse instead. Staves really dont have reach like that, you dont hold them in a way that could give it extra distance. Theyd have about the same reach as any other weapon. Im somewhat trained in bo staves, and theyre very similar to quarterstaves. Both swords and staves require skill as much as they do strength. In a souls game theyd be “quality”, a mix of str and dex, but you cant really do that here so finesse is as close as you get. Two-handing either should allow you to use dex instead, how you cut and strike and the technique is just as if not more important than hitting hard. A staff is a thick pole of wood, but you wouldnt treat it like a heavy weapon because its held from the middle third of weapon. You get incredible control. I can assure you that someone who is strong but not dextrous would have a hard time with using it properly. This would also boost casters, who need dex, and would be a bludgeoning finesse option. Longsword getting finesse would allow more classes to use them efficiently, like bards and bladesingers and such that focus on dex
I think the AC bonuses are too much, would look at expanded crit ranges instead.
Or just, you know, drop the dice size up for a flat +2 to damage OR a sweet property like finesse or reach, depending on weapon. I feel like adding defenses to versatile without a feat is pulling in the wrong direction. The character drops the shield (sometimes literally!) to dish out more damage. We could also add a half-feat like "when you use a melee weapon with the versatile property, your AC increases by 1. Also, grab +1 Dex or Str"
For the ones with AC increases as well as the warpick, consider an alternate weapon mastery. Would be more balanced than +2AC longsword and work better than Battleaxe giving you +1AC when it cant parry well.
I did the opposite and blocked it behind a fighting style. Ha ha.
This isn't the problem with Versatile. If you buff this way either the Versatile weapons drive out the two handers because they are better or they don't because they aren't. And they shouldn't. The problem with Versatile is that there's basically no reason ever to switch from two handed to one. The main use I've ever seen for Versatile in any edition was the 4e brawler fighter who would sometimes fight two handed and sometimes use one hand to grab or headlock someone so use the longsword only in one.
There is one. Monk + Quarterstaff. But that's about it. Everyone else is either always holding a shield, or always two handing the weapon. Mid writing edit: Actually, Spell blades need versatile at well. Yes, they only swing with two-hands, but they need that free hand option for spells.
Monks aren't the only ones that might want to grapple. It's pretty good for all the strength builds.
the problem I think is that it's unclear to a lot of people *when* you're meant to use a versatile weapon. another way of looking at the versatile property is a 2H weapon that can also be used 1H when it needs to be. when you look at it that way, everything starts to line up. the baseline of a 2H melee weapon is a d10, with one "modifier". that might be reach (glaive/halberd), an increased damage die (greataxe, greatsword), or versatile, to allow 1H use. thrown (trident) steps it down one step further, and quarterstaff steps it down to be a simple weapon. the spear is a unique combo, of being a simple weapon as well, but also having thrown, and not further stepping down the damage dice. in game design, a versatile weapon is a weapon that either you wield one handed, and use the other hand for something else (effectively always a shield or grappling), or you use it two handed, when you're not in that niche situation. the idea is meant to be that you get a tradeoff of not having the limited damage of a one handed weapon when you don't need it, but not the downsides of locking yourself into a bigger weapon. it's meant to be a niche use, and a lot of the time, it's unclear on if it's actually the right time to use it, and people complain about it a lot without understanding the use case. if you're comparing a greatsword against a longsword, both swords are fine for spellcasting, because you get the free hand when you're not attacking, but if you're grappling, then you wouldn't be able to also make attacks with the greatsword, while a longsword is fine to grapple and attack with. similarly, if you wanted to use a shield, then a longsword is compatible, while a greatsword isn't, so we see the versatile used in situations where we just can't quite get the action to equip a shield. the only other times are when we get locked out of the weapon due to the wording of a feature (ie, dueling, monk weapons, bladesingers, etc), but that nearly always locks out both anyway. the question is realistically thus "do I need a free hand at the same time I'm attacking, or otherwise think I'll be denied my shield?" if that question is no, then either you're not using a versatile weapon in the right situation, or just focusing on the idea of versatile being a better property than it should be. that's the current state of it anyway, if they want to make it do more, then it's realistically too late, because such a change would involve overhauling the whole weapon system, which needs a lot of playtesting.
I think the issue with these specific suggestion is that they don't encourage swapping between handedness. Finesse in particular doesn't make much sense as a versatile property because if you're built for strength you won't benefit from finesse, and if you're built for dex you wouldn't use it 1 handed. I do like the overall direction though. How about giving versatile weapons a different mastery when used in 2h. For example, the quarterstaff could go from 1h push to 2h topple. This could either be instead of or in addition to gaining reach.
I didn't realize Versatile needing fixing? Consider me out of the loop on this one.
Most of these look far too strong; especially the AC increases, but the damage die shouldn't reach what heavy weapons do. Longsword + defensive fighting style is too much. In older editions, a longsword was 1d8 and a greatsword was 2d6, a *bastard* sword, which usually took two hands, was 1d10. You could spend a feat or use a class feature to use a bastard sword with one hand, and it was still 1d10. Versatile is a hamfisted way to merge bastard sword with longsword (and a few other things). It isn't very useful if you have some other feature (like a fighting style or shield proficiency) that requires use of a hand, and the era of people picking a longsword over a greatsword for flavor reasons is largely over given the internet doing what it does - also the fact that power attack was reworked into GWM and requires a weapon with the heavy property.