Multiclass-ception: MCing into your own class (D&D 5e)

I hear people ask this on the internet, but never in my group. It sounds like an interesting thought exercise: could your D&D character "multiclass" into a subclass inside of your own class?

For example, could a champion fighter "multi-class" into a battle master fighter? Or, more interestingly, could a thief get one or two levels of assassin or arcane trickster?

Here is why - and how - I'd allow it.

First, it seems like a fair idea in terms of fluff - maybe you want your thief to gain a few arcane trickster features, like Gray Mouser, without multi-classing into wizard, or you like the four elements monk to have some aspects of the kensai.

Also, if my 2nd level fighter can become a battle master... why wouldn't my 12th level champion be able to do the same?

In terms of balance... I cannot see any problems at a first glance, although I'm sure we can find something. I'd rather forbid one or two problematic cases than ban the concept altogether, although I suspect that these rules will seldom be more powerful than simply multiclassing.

Anyway, my idea is instinct is to treat this as "school credits" or something similar - yyou do not have to take the "credits" you already have. Or like "prestige classes" that require a few levels in other classes to get to.

This is how you multiclassing work by 5e rules (emphasis mine):

Multiclassing

Multiclassing allows you to gain levels in multiple classes. Doing so lets you mix the abilities of those classes to realize a character concept that might not be reflected in one of the standard class options. 

With this rule, you have the option of gaining a level in a new class whenever you advance in level, instead of gaining a level in your current class. Your levels in all your classes are added together to determine your character level. For example, if you have three levels in wizard and two in fighter, you're a 5th-level character. 

As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind. You might even start progressing in a third or fourth class. Compared to a single-class character of the same level, you'll sacrifice some focus in exchange for versatility.

One random example:

Character Level
1	Fighter 1
2	Fighter 2
3	Fighter 3
4	Fighter 3	Rogue 1
5	Fighter 3	Rogue 2
6	Fighter 4	Rogue 2
7	Fighter 5	Rogue 2
8	Fighter 6	Rogue 2
9	Fighter 7	Rogue 2
10	Fighter 8	Rogue 2
11	Fighter 9	Rogue 2
12	Fighter 10	Rogue 2
13	Fighter 11	Rogue 2
14	Fighter 12	Rogue 2
15	Fighter 13	Rogue 2
16	Fighter 14	Rogue 2
17	Fighter 15	Rogue 2
18	Fighter 15	Rogue 3
19	Fighter 15	Rogue 3	Warlock 1
20	Fighter 15	Rogue 3	Warlock 2

It is obvious that you cannot multiclass from pure fighter to rogue 2 without going through rogue 1; you haven't complete your "credits" in rogue school until you do!

If you are a you're a "pure" fighter, you have three paths to choose from: champion, battle master or eldritch knight.

Character Level
1		Fighter 1
2		Fighter 2
3	Champion 3	BM 3	EK 3
4	Fighter 4	Fighter 4	Fighter 4
5	Fighter 5	Fighter 5	Fighter 5
6	Fighter 6	Fighter 6	Fighter 6
7	Champion 7	BM 7	EK 7
8	Fighter 8	Fighter 8	Fighter 8
9	Fighter 9	Fighter 9	Fighter 9
10	Champion 10	BM 10	EK 10
11	Fighter 11	Fighter 11	Fighter 11
12	Fighter 12	Fighter 12	Fighter 12
13	Fighter 13	Fighter 13	Fighter 13
14	Fighter 14	Fighter 14	Fighter 14
15	Champion 15	BM 15	EK 15
16	Fighter 16	Fighter 16	Fighter 16
17	Fighter 17	Fighter 17	Fighter 17
18	Champion 18	BM 18	EK 18
19	Fighter 19	Fighter 19	Fighter 19
20	Fighter 20	Fighter 20	Fighter 20

To get the 10th-level battle master features, it is not enough that you're a 9th-level fighter gaining a level - you need to have walked the whole path, and that includes having the features of a 3rd and 7th level battle master.

But - here is the house rule - once you've been through the path, you can take a step in any direction you like, including your own sub-classes. You can even change your course if you want to!

Let us some examples.

Say you're a 10th level champion.

Can you multi-class into monk or rogue? YES, if you meet the prerequisites. You start at level 1 in any of those classes.

Can you get a level three monk feature? NO, because to get that feature you need to have walked the whole path through Monk 1 and Monk 2.

Can you multi-class into battle master 3? YES - you meet all the requirements, since you'e already been through Fighter 1 and Fighter 2.

Can you multi-class into battle master 10? NO, because, even though you have all the fighter levels that are required, you do not have levels 3 and 7. On the other hand, you CAN reach you goal in the next three levels. You can even switch your path to Battle Master once you get a few more levels:

Character Level
1	Fighter 1
2	Fighter 2
3	Champion 3
4	Fighter 4
5	Fighter 5
6	Fighter 6
7	Champion 7
8	Fighter 8
9	Fighter 9
10	Champion 10
11	Champion 10	BM 3
12	Champion 10	BM 8
13	Champion 10	BM 10
14	Fighter 11	Fighter 11
15	Fighter 12	Fighter 12
16	Fighter 13	Fighter 13
17	Fighter 14	Fighter 14
18		BM 15

Notation would be something like Fighter 10 (Champion)/Fighter 1 (Battle master 3) at level 11, and  Fighter 15 (Battle master)/Fighter 3 (Champion 10) at level 18. A bit confusing, I admit, but should work well enough.

But... feats!

Yes, feats are a fair solution too. In this case, the Martial Adept feat. If we used this house rules, would the martial adept feat become obsolete? Not quite. Battle master 3 STILL requires fighter 1 and 2, so the feat would still be useful for other classes, while the champion and eldritch knight would gain a significant boost when taking maneuvers. Sounds good to me!

Would that work?

I have never tested it, but what do you think? Any pitfalls I might be missing?

All images copyright of Wizards of the coast.

RULES TRUMP COMMON SENSE

Yes, you've read that right.

Regardless of what people might say, this is how most RPGs work - and that DEFINITELY includes "old school" RPGs.

It's pretty obvious when you think of it, but I've heard the contrary repeated so many times that I think it is worth addressing. In fact, I think this is so obvious that a few people will find it hard to see - like a fish trying to discern water, to use a common metaphor.

A few points that might make things even clearer:

* Most of the process of playing RPGs is made through conversation, with a fair amount of common sense. This does not require using rules, so there is no conflict.
* If the rule comes into play, they trump common sense. You'll choose the rules over common sense almost all of the time; if the rule becomes too absurd, you either make an exception or create a new rule. You do not use common sense to overcome the rules often. If you do, the rules are either bad or a bad fit for your group.
* Of course, the rules must be used WITH common sense. Most of the time, you'll use BOTH. It is also good if the rules are BASED on common sense, but they might also be mostly abstract. Does a sword to the gut kill you? Well, it depends on your HP.
* You also use common sense when there is NO clear rule.
* Frequent use of common sense to replace the rules may lead to GM tyranny, but may also lead to greater freedom for the players - it all depends on the specific examples (see below). This doesn't change the point I'm making.

Let me give you some examples.

Combat: How many attacks can a fighter make with a sword or dagger in six seconds? What about a dagger? Can you shoot a crossbow four times in six seconds? Is a short-bow any faster? The answer is found in the rules, despite what common sense or real life might indicate.

Weapons and armor: do you benefit form using a helmet or from taking it off? Can you use padding under plate to improve your AC? Can you attack twice in the same round by using a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other? This is determined by the rules.

Movement: How many feet can you move in a second? How many miles can you travel in a day? Look at the rules. The answer is only 42 if the rules say it is.

Falling and other hazards: can you survive a 200 feet fall? Three days or 30 days without food? Check the book.

Encumbrance: can you carry 150 pounds without ill effects, or 50 pounds are enough to slow you down? Depends on the rules you're using.

Conflicts: how often can the Str 13 paladin beat the Str 14 demon when arm wrestling? What about the Str 8 wizard? And what if each of them is attempting to perform a similar feat of strength? Jus do whatever the rules tell you to do.

I think that's enough to make a point. Let us discuss a few related issues.

GM tyranny x  Player Freedom

Ignoring the rules in favor of perceived "common sense" may make the PCs feel powerless and frustrated.

- "What do you mean my Str 13 paladin has no chance against a Str 14 demon? Don't I get a roll?"
- "Penalty for traveling in armor? Since when? I wish I knew that when I made my character!"
- "So, I get 10d6 damage from the fall and... Dead? But I have 70 HP left!"

If the GM decides to change the rules, we should do it in advance, with player's consent, or both.

On the other hand, the GM is free to ignore rules in order to allow PCs to do things the books forbid. For example, you may want to treat a rapier as a light weapon when holding a dagger in the other hand in 5e, or allow an elf with a Charisma bonus, instead of Intelligence. But it doesn't hurt to do so in advance, to, to allow all PCs to benefit.

These changes to the rules are usually made with balance, not only common sense, in mind. Can the wizard use Wisdom instead of Intelligence to cast spells? Probably not.

If you follow this blog, you may have noticed that I allow wizards to use swords too. Common sense says this is obvious - but, again, the rules trump common sense, so your wizard can only use a sword if the GM allows.

Reductio ad absurdum. Magic and the gods.

There are extreme cases in which the rules will be so absurd that they should obviously be disregard - for example you shouldn't be able to break a wall with a whip in most circumstances, but you might do it with a pick, no matter if they both deal 1d6 damage (for example).

This is a small minority of the cases. Most of the time, they both deal 1d6 damage and that's that.

If the rules require common sense to fix all of the time, they are bad rules. If a rule says "if you roll a natural 20 you can achieve anything you want", this is a bad rule. If a rule says "if you roll a natural 20 you can achieve anything you want, within reason", this is not a bad rule, but an incomplete rule that requires common sense to actually use. You might say that "within reason" is implicit - in this case, the rule is just badly written.

There are also rules meant to fill any gaps in other rules - Moldvay's "there is always a chance" comes to mind.

Of course, intentional misuse of the rules are the fault of the users, not the rules!

- Using a helmet gives you +1 AC!
- Cool! I'll fold this piece of paper into a helmet!
- ... Yeah, this is not a helmet.

Magic and the gods may change the rules of the universe, but, ordinarily, they cannot change the rules of the game. If Thor has 100 HP in your game, he should die after taking 100 points of damage. If he has no stats... then it's up to the GM.

To roll or not to roll (shades of gray)

Sometimes, it isn't clear if you should use the rules or common sense. I've wrote a post on that a while ago. But, basically. it's not black and white.

But I like changing the rules!

Me too! That is why I write lots of house rules which, in my opinion, make more sense than the ones used in the game. Still, these are rules. They are BASED on common sense, but they are not common sense, they are rules.

In any case, I'd be curious to hear from you if you think common sense trumps rules (except for extreme cases).

5e D&D melee weapons: one-by-one analysis... and FIX!

People seem to like this post, so I'll try something similar that has been going in my mind lately... In this post I'll analyse every single weapon from the 5e list.

I also wrote a detailed analysis of each weapon property, and a perspective on weapon damage. Might be worth checking those ones out first.

Anyway, here is the table for easy reference (source):

Simple Weapons

(Simple) Melee Weapons	Cost	Damage	Range	Weight	Properties
Club	1 sp	1d4 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	light
Dagger	2 gp	1d4 piercing	20/60	1 lb.	finesse, light, thrown
Greatclub	2 sp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	10 lb.	two-handed
Handaxe	5 gp	1d6 slashing	20/60	2 lb.	light, thrown
Javelin	5 sp	1d6 piercing	30/120	2 lb.	thrown
Light hammer	2 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	20/60	2 lb.	light, thrown
Mace	5 gp	1d6 bludgeoning	—	4 lb.	—
Quarterstaff	2 sp	1d6 bludgeoning	—	4 lb.	versatile (1d8)
Sickle	1 gp	1d4 slashing	—	2 lb.	light
Spear	1 gp	1d6 piercing	20/60	3 lb.	thrown, versatile (1d8)

Martial Weapons

(Martial) Melee Weapons	Cost	Damage	Range	Weight	Properties
Battleaxe	10 gp	1d8 slashing	—	4 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Flail	10 gp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	—
Glaive	20 gp	1d10 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Greataxe	30 gp	1d12 slashing	—	7 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Greatsword	50 gp	2d6 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Halberd	20 gp	1d10 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Lance	10 gp	1d12 piercing	—	6 lb.	reach, special1
Longsword	15 gp	1d8 slashing	—	3 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Maul	10 gp	2d6 bludgeoning	—	10 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Morningstar	15 gp	1d8 piercing	—	4 lb.	—
Pike	5 gp	1d10 piercing	—	18 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Rapier	25 gp	1d8 piercing	—	2 lb.	finesse
Scimitar	25 gp	1d6 slashing	—	3 lb.	finesse, light
Shortsword	10 gp	1d6 piercing	—	2 lb.	finesse, light
Trident	5 gp	1d6 piercing	20/60	4 lb.	thrown, versatile (1d8)
War pick	5 gp	1d8 piercing	—	2 lb.	—
Warhammer	15 gp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Whip	2 gp	1d4 slashing	—	3 lb.	finesse, reach

Simple Weapons

As a general rule, simple weapons deal 1d6 damage, and have one or two positive properties.

Club - This is just a very simple, cheap weapon, not much better than an improvised one. Fair enough. Use this if you have no money or no options.

Dagger - 1d4 damage, three good properties. Nice weapon for multiple occasions.

Greatclub - This weapon is useless when compared to the quarterstaff.

It has a single negative property, deals 1d8 damage, and is significantly heavier than a quarterstaff, which is equal or better in every aspect. There is no class, feat, or special rule that can make this weapon useful. Which is a pity, since the weapon looks kinda cool for cavemen-type barbarians (and Bobby, the Barbarian!). This weapon would be fine if we had a costlier two-handed simple weapon with 1d10 damage... Or just change the damage to 1d10 and be done with it.

Handaxe - 1d6 damage, two good properties. Good, as expected.

Javelin - 1d6 damage, one good property, plus increased range. Also good.

Light hammer - same deal.

Mace - This is the worse offender IMO.

1d6 damage, NO properties. Having a useless weapon might not be a big deal. But having an useless mace, such an iconic weapon for clerics, including Aleena the cleric - arguably the most memorable in D&D history - is adding insult to injury. I can only assume this is a mistake by the designers, or a typo. Making the mace versatile fixes some of those issues. It would become a worse, more expensive version of the spear, but close enough that I wouldn't care that much.

Quarterstaff - This is a bit ridiculous.

 It manages to be better or equal to BOTH the mace and the greatclub, two weapons that have no function in the game RAW. It is 25 times cheaper than the mace, for example. If you want to show that weapon prices do not matter, please don't include useless text in the game. Also, there is no reason for the wizard's iconic weapon to be better than the cleric's one.
But that's not the worse part. Making the quarterstaff versatile allows you to use it with a shield, or even one quarterstaff in each hand if you have the right feats - which I personally find ludicrous.
This is probably a mistake, which is illustrated by the PHB errata: "Two-Handed (p. 147).This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.". So, this weapon was probably meant to be two-handed, but before the errata it would make it useless for wizards - they often need a hand to cast spells.
This should be a cheap, light, two-handed weapon, 1d8 damage, mostly intended for wizards and monks. Or even a double weapon.

Sickle - this weapon isn't bad, but could be better. Small, 1d4, slashing, light... In short, good enough. I don't remember many characters that go around fighting with a sickle, but it is in D&D's history (through the druid). The designers probably wanted to portray this weapon as a suboptimal farming implement. Fair enough. But we should have a small, finesse, slashing weapon too, because this is a very common trope.

Spear - very good for a simple weapon, not good enough for all spears. This weapon is good as written, but we should have some "military" versions of the spears as martial weapons. A heavy spear, a long spear (not a pike!), a finesse spear... Well, there ARE a couple of "spear-like" weapons in the martial list - the trident and the pike - but unfortunately they are really, really bad.

Martial Weapons

As a general rule, simple weapons deal 1d8 damage, and have one positive property (often versatile 1d10, which isn't a great property). If they are heavy/two-handed (all heavy melee weapons are two-handed), they deal 1d10 to 1d12 (or 2d6) damage.

Battleaxe - As expected.

Flail - As expected. Lighter than the battleaxe, but not versatile. I am not sure this is a real weapon, but I like how it looks...

Glaive - As expected. The fact that there is an identical weapon called halberd bothers me. I can only assume this is made for nostalgia's sake. 5e really like weapons that have no clear mechanical function.

Greataxe -  As expected - see greatsword.

Greatsword - The greatsword is better than the greataxe the vast majority of the time, ESPECIALLY if you have the GWF style; the greataxe might be marginally better for barbarians. It is also a bit more expensive. Fair enough, I guess, although I, personally, would like to see some reason for non-barbarians to use the greataxe.

Halberd - see glaive.

Lance - a special weapon, only useful if you're mounted.

Longsword - As expected, more expensive and a bit lighter than the battleaxe.

Maul - a cheaper, heavier version of the greatsword. I have a difficult time understating why this shouldn't be a cheaper, heavier version of the greataxe. Barbarians with mauls look cool.

Morningstar - Sigh. Someone at WotC hates maces.

So, this is a spiked mace. Also, a heavier, more expensive version of the war pick. Not a single reason to use it. Why is a mace a simple weapon and the spiked mace a martial one? Also, piercing damage? I would think most of the damage would be bludgeoning. So, the morningstar is bad against skeletons. Go figure.

Pike - well... 

Nothing terrible about this weapon - but there is not much use for this extremely heavy weapon, either. Also, why is this so heavy if it has the same reach as a halberd? Yeah, real pikes should have a longer reach, with the same "caveat" as the lance ("You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you."). They should also be treated as a "formation" weapon, not something you carry around in a dungeon.

Call it "half pike" or something equivalent to a heavy spear and you're done.

Rapier - Good. Too good, maybe. 

Why did they make this the only 1d8 finesse weapon I cannot understand. They basic encouraged all Dexterity builds to pick it unless they dual-wield. It is the ideal weapon for them to use with a shield, which looks a bit off. But I'm not overly concerned with it.

Scimitar - as expected - 1d6, two proprieties. It is a light weapon. It weights 3 pounds. The rapier weights two pounds. It is not a light weapon. But that's okay because "light" means "small" in 5e. VERY easy to understand.

Shortsword - 1d6, two proprieties, fine.

Trident - Useless. Identical to spear, heavier, and five times more expensive. Some argue that WotC put this in there to show some weapons are useless. Well, we should have figured that by now anyway. So, the trident isn't mean to be a "real" weapon, only something that gladiator's used for show. If that's the case, it didn't deserve a separate entry. In any case it is surely nice that the designers pay this homage to realism before they describe 200 spells... Now I can sleep peacefully because I know they care.

War pick - as expected; no proprieties, but light and cheap. See morningstar.

Warhammer - as expected.

Whip - a special weapon. Little damage (1d4), but the only one-handed weapon with reach. Could be 1d6, I guess, but good enough. The low damage must be another homage to realism, I guess, since the whip doesn't seem like a real weapon to me.

Versatile spiked club/mace. Why not?

But... weight and price do not matter!

If they don't they should have been kept out of the book, there is enough useless data as it is. But, really, you can ignore price all you want, I agree - it doesn't really matter for PCs. But there is a whole world out there where prices should make SOME sense, at least WITHIN ordinary weapon lists (balancing it with magic weapons is hard, I know). Weight is hard to ignore, specially for weapons such as the greatclub and pike. If you're using the encumbrance variant, you cannot wear plate and carry a pike if you have Strength 15, for example.

What about the ranged weapons?

Honestly? They are mostly good as they are. Balanced, well thought out... People who insist that weapon's needn't be balanced must really dislike these ones.

But how can we fix it?

Glad you asked! I'm writing a whole "Manual of Arms" for 5e. If that sounds like a good idea, stay tuned. If you just want a better table... Here you go.

Simple Weapons

(Simple) Melee Weapons	Cost	Damage	Range	Weight	Properties
Club	1 sp	1d4 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	light
Dagger	2 gp	1d4 piercing	20/60	1 lb.	finesse, light, thrown
Greatclub	2 sp	1d10 bludgeoning	—	10 lb.	two-handed
Handaxe	5 gp	1d6 slashing	20/60	2 lb.	light, thrown
Javelin	5 sp	1d6 piercing	30/120	2 lb.	thrown
Light hammer	2 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	20/60	2 lb.	light, thrown
Mace	5 gp	1d6 bludgeoning	—	4 lb.	versatile (1d8)
Quarterstaff	2 sp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	4 lb.	two-handed
Sickle	1 gp	1d4 slashing	—	2 lb.	light
Spear	1 gp	1d6 piercing	20/60	3 lb.	thrown, versatile (1d8)

New simple weapon:

(Simple) Melee Weapons	Cost	Damage	Range	Weight	Properties
Knife	2 gp	1d4 slashing	—	1 lb.	finesse, light

Martial Weapons

(Martial) Melee Weapons	Cost	Damage	Range	Weight	Properties
Battleaxe	10 gp	1d8 slashing	—	4 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Flail	10 gp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	—
Glaive	20 gp	1d10 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Greataxe	30 gp	1d12 slashing	—	7 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Greatsword	50 gp	2d6 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Halberd	20 gp	1d10 slashing	—	6 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Lance	10 gp	1d12 piercing	—	6 lb.	reach, special1
Longsword	15 gp	1d8 slashing	—	3 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Maul	10 gp	1d12 bludgeoning	—	10 lb.	heavy, two-handed
Morningstar (Mace, spiked)	15 gp	1d8 piercing	—	4 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Pike Half-pike	5 gp	1d10 piercing	—	6 lb.	heavy, reach, two-handed
Rapier	25 gp	1d8 piercing	—	2 lb.	finesse
Scimitar	25 gp	1d6 slashing	—	3 lb.	finesse, light
Shortsword	10 gp	1d6 piercing	—	2 lb.	finesse, light
Spear (light)	5 gp	1d8 piercing			thrown, finesse
Trident/Spear (heavy)	5 gp	1d8 piercing	20/60	4 lb.	thrown, versatile (1d10)
War pick	5 gp	1d8 piercing	—	2 lb.	—
Warhammer	15 gp	1d8 bludgeoning	—	2 lb.	versatile (1d10)
Whip	2 gp	1d4 slashing	—	3 lb.	finesse, reach

Notes:
Yes, I do realize that I made a light spear without the light property, and a heavy spear without the heavy property. As I've said before, the "light" and "heavy" property mean "small" and "bulky" and have nothing to do with weight. In any case, "agile spear" and "military spear" might work too.

I'm certainly not the first one to rework this list and I probably got many ideas form other people.

I've seem some suggest 1d4 bludgeoning/1d4 piercing for the morning star. I love this idea, although it might be a bit too fiddly. I would even dare to make the morning start identical to the mace, PLUS 1 extra point of piercing damage. Again, probably too fiddly. The 3e solution seems decent: "Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon."

I "fixed" some weapons by giving them the versatile property. This is not a great property, but it makes plenty sense for these weapons (versatile weapons tend to be heavier), and keeps them on par with the others.

I DO have an even simpler solution, but it includes introducing new mechanics. I'll leave it to the next post.

Wait, do I even NEED a list of weapons?

Not really, but I like it. Anyway, if you don't:

Simple weapon: 1d6 damage (choose bl/sl/pi), 2 gp, 2 lb., and choose one or two properties (you can choose 3 if you change the damage to 1d4).

Martial weapon: 1d8 damage (choose bl/sl/pi), 20 gp, 2 lb., and choose one property (you can choose two if you change the damage to 1d6):

Properties:
* Versatile, double weight and cost, cannot be combined with finesse or light.
* Finesse.
* Light.
* Thrown.
* Cheap: the cost is converted to sp instead of gp if the weapon is simple, or halved if the weapon is martial.
* Two-handed (triple weight and cost, cannot pick other properties). Bump the damage by two steps (1d6 to 1d10, 1d8 to 1d12 etc.) You can swap 1d12 for 2d6 if desired. Martial weapons that are two handed also gain the heavy property.
* Reach + two-handed + heavy + 1d10 damage (must be martial, triple weight and cost, cannot be combined with other properties).

Adjusting cost and weight:

* If your weapon deals 1d6 damage or more, you can cut the cost in half by adding 50% weight.

* If your weapon deals 1d4 damage, you can halve the weight by doubling the cost.

Final note

If you find any of this useful, or if you'd like to see  a "Manual of Arms" for 5e, let me know in the comments. I think I've been focusing on 5e weapons too much lately, so I might change subjects soon.