why is the fighter circumcised ?

[CyberThread]

I mean he isn't neutered the class is great for what it is but why such a lack in weapon choices seem lacking. I know it is a small complaint but it is just the tip of the problem.

[pwykersotz]

I mean he isn't neutered the class is great for what it is but why such a lack in weapon choices seem lacking. I know it is a small complaint but it is just the tip of the problem.

Unfortunate wording on so many levels. :smallwink:

What do you find lacking about weapon choices in particular?

[Gwendol]

I thought the fighter to be quite versatile. Other classes (paladin, monk) are much more forced to use a limited selection.

[silveralen]

Uhhhhhh.....

So... what exactly is the complaint? All reach weapons are now spiked chains, which is my first thought when you mentioned missing weapons. I guess having to go champion to get a better crit range might annoy people?

[Slipperychicken]

Most likely because the fighter's religion required it. It could also be for sanitation purposes or aesthetics. Or he really wants to get with some girl who follows a religion which requires circumcision.

tl;dr: Lots of reasons.

[Daishain]

First the warlock is neutered, now the fighter is circumcised...

Are we going to be comparing all perceived weaknesses of the classes to genital mutilation?

[pwykersotz]

First the warlock is neutered, now the fighter is circumcised...

Are we going to be comparing all perceived weaknesses of the classes to genital mutilation?

Rangers are spayed.

[bloodshed343]

In 4e, different weapons did different things. Axes and hammers did more damage than swords but were less accurate. Light blades were more accurate than heavy blades due to a feat that let them target reflex, but heavy blades had a feat to improve your opportunity attacks. Some flails were equivalent in damage and accuracy to swords, some flails were roughly the same as a hammer. A lot of builds used flails because the expertise feat let you knock enemies prone at-will. There was also a feat to knock enemies prone with a polearm, but flails were better due to being able to use a shield, unless you really needed the heavy blade/polearm combination in which case you got a glaive. Spears were best for charging due to both the surprising charge feat and the thundergod enchant. Hammers got great at epic with overwhelming impact.

In 5e the only difference between a long sword and a flail is an irrelevant damage type and the useless versatile property. There's no mechanical difference at all between a long sword and a battle axe. Glaives and halberds are the exact same thing in 5e. The only difference between a greatsword and a maul is an irrelevant damage type.

Tl; dr weapons are too simple, we need a flail master feat.

[Scirocco]

*snip*

Doesn't 4th edition also assume that you'll get +whatever weapons of your choice?

Not many treasure piles are going to have the perfect weapon for your build.

[Z3ro]

In 4e, different weapons did different things. Axes and hammers did more damage than swords but were less accurate. Light blades were more accurate than heavy blades due to a feat that let them target reflex, but heavy blades had a feat to improve your opportunity attacks. Some flails were equivalent in damage and accuracy to swords, some flails were roughly the same as a hammer. A lot of builds used flails because the expertise feat let you knock enemies prone at-will. There was also a feat to knock enemies prone with a polearm, but flails were better due to being able to use a shield, unless you really needed the heavy blade/polearm combination in which case you got a glaive. Spears were best for charging due to both the surprising charge feat and the thundergod enchant. Hammers got great at epic with overwhelming impact.

In 5e the only difference between a long sword and a flail is an irrelevant damage type and the useless versatile property. There's no mechanical difference at all between a long sword and a battle axe. Glaives and halberds are the exact same thing in 5e. The only difference between a greatsword and a maul is an irrelevant damage type.

Tl; dr weapons are too simple, we need a flail master feat.

One of the things I've always hated in D&D (across editions) was the emphasis on builds that requires specific weapons. I love that 5E has largely done away with that.

[Gnomes2169]

Rangers are spayed.

I thought that was druids?

[Daishain]

One of the things I've always hated in D&D (across editions) was the emphasis on builds that requires specific weapons. I love that 5E has largely done away with that.
Going to have to disagree with you there. While balance between weapon types has indeed been an issue in the past, I am firmly of the opinion that a warrior's choice in weapon should have a significant impact on the way they fight.

[Dienekes]

Going to have to disagree with you there. While balance between weapon types has indeed been an issue in the past, I am firmly of the opinion that a warrior's choice in weapon should have a significant impact on the way they fight.

I think there's a range, having builds that require reach, or two-handed, or shield is fine. Having builds that require specific weapons like a spiked chain with 3 specific enchantments is less so.

[Daishain]

I think there's a range, having builds that require reach, or two-handed, or shield is fine. Having builds that require specific weapons like a spiked chain with 3 specific enchantments is less so.
Right now, weapons are so similar that nearly all reach weapon builds use a weapon with the same exact stats. Even though not all of them are using the same actual weapon, there really isn't much practical difference as it stands.

[RedMage125]

Tl; dr weapons are too simple, we need a flail master feat.

Hear, hear!

I just love flails. My Bard just hit level 3 and went Valor. I picked up a flail.

[Tvtyrant]

I thought that was druids?

It's for the good of the vet population!

[bloodshed343]

I think there's a range, having builds that require reach, or two-handed, or shield is fine. Having builds that require specific weapons like a spiked chain with 3 specific enchantments is less so.

I agree that we shouldn't have builds that require certain enchantments, but we should absolutely have builds that require certain weapon types. Fighting with a flail should be different than fighting with a sword and should have different options available.

[Z3ro]

I agree that we shouldn't have builds that require certain enchantments, but we should absolutely have builds that require certain weapon types. Fighting with a flail should be different than fighting with a sword and should have different options available.

I actually really like the balance 5E struck for the most part. Look at polearm master; here's a feat that gives combat options to a group of similar weapons, not a single weapon. Oh you could argue that a weapon like the spear should have been included, but the intent was well done. Same thing with fighting styles; I like that if I take dueling, I can pick up a magic battle axe I find instead of chucking it because I use longswords.

[silveralen]

I agree that we shouldn't have builds that require certain enchantments, but we should absolutely have builds that require certain weapon types. Fighting with a flail should be different than fighting with a sword and should have different options available.

We finally get past this awful holdover from earlier editions which locks characters into using specific weapons, and you want to bring it back?

Realistic it may be, but fun it is not.

[Sartharina]

I'd rather see the weapons have their special qualities baked in.

[BRC]

I wonder how people would feel about some houseruled/built in way to transfer enchantments from one weapon to another, equally valid weapon.

Like, I'm playing a swashbuckling dex-based fighter who uses a Rapier. I find a +1 Longsword. Should the DM let me pay some gold or do something to transfer the enchantments from the longsword to my rapier.

[silveralen]

I'd rather see the weapons have their special qualities baked in.

Any examples? Just curious. The problem with having innate abilities on weapons, instead of feat tax, is that they have to be balanced with everyone having access.

Although.... requiring a prof mod of X amount to access certain features could be fun.

[BRC]

Any examples? Just curious. The problem with having innate abilities on weapons, instead of feat tax, is that they have to be balanced with everyone having access.

Although.... requiring a prof mod of X amount to access certain features could be fun.

Or maybe a "Weapon Mastery" feat that lets you use special properties of different weapon types, but you can spend a week training with a new weapon to switch your focus.

Like, you previously used a spear, and so you had the "Superior Reach" Ability, giving you advantage if you moved inside their threatened range this turn.

And then later you switch to Greataxes, which have the "Brute Force" power, causing attacks to deal 1d6+6 instead of 1d12 or whatever. And your character can just take some time to switch their focus.

That way you can have nifty stuff with different weapons, but not lock a build into a single weapon type.

[Forum Explorer]

This doesn't really have much to do with the fighter as it does with the weapons.


Anyways my opinion is that this is a casualty of the abstract system. Ultimately a flail and a longsword might be used differently, but they have the same result, doing about the same damage. Because the whole attacking thing is just one roll of the dice we don't have the complexity necessary to showcase how those weapons are actually, realistically different.

[Slipperychicken]

Anyways my opinion is that this is a casualty of the abstract system. Ultimately a flail and a longsword might be used differently, but they have the same result, doing about the same damage. Because the whole attacking thing is just one roll of the dice we don't have the complexity necessary to showcase how those weapons are actually, realistically different.

I figure the abstraction is a good thing, since it doesn't penalize players as much if they want to use a different weapon as part of their character concept. Like if I want to use a flail instead of a longsword on my paladin, I don't have to worry about the flail having a +2 to disarm or whatever.

Also, I think the single damage type per weapon thing is kind of baffling. Like it's somehow impossible to stab someone with a longsword and deal piercing damage, or slam them with the pommel to deal bludgeoning.

[JoeJ]

I agree that we shouldn't have builds that require certain enchantments, but we should absolutely have builds that require certain weapon types. Fighting with a flail should be different than fighting with a sword and should have different options available.

I don't agree with that at all. In the fantasy I'm familiar with, a character who is a skilled fighter has usually mastered a wide range of weapons. I don't typically see fighters who are sub-par if they pick up something other than their "build" weapon.

[Dienekes]

I agree that we shouldn't have builds that require certain enchantments, but we should absolutely have builds that require certain weapon types. Fighting with a flail should be different than fighting with a sword and should have different options available.

May I suggest you look at Fantasy Craft? It's crunchier than 5e. A lot crunchier, but if that doesn't bother you I think it does this sort of stuff better than 5e ever will.

[Dienekes]

I don't agree with that at all. In the fantasy I'm familiar with, a character who is a skilled fighter has usually mastered a wide range of weapons. I don't typically see fighters who are sub-par if they pick up something other than their "build" weapon.

I think this is more competency than anything. In a lot of fiction (Conan for instance) I remember him wielding weapons differently, he hews and cleaves with an ax, while he holds back and pokes with the spear. But he is good at all of them and can make them all work.

I would think to model this would be a set of proficiency feats that unlock new fighting methods for all weapons. Like:
Weapon Trainee
Benefit: you gain ability 1 with all weapons. For axes ability 1 would be half damage is also dealt to armor worn by target. For great swords it's half-hand: ignore 2 points of DR. For spears it's set: deal double damage if you don't move and attack someone who moved.

Or whatever.

Then you'd get
Weapon Master
Prerequisite: minimum level 10, weapon trainee
Benefit: you gain ability 2 for each weapon. Which gives more.

And so on. They'll never do that though.

[Forum Explorer]

I figure the abstraction is a good thing, since it doesn't penalize players as much if they want to use a different weapon as part of their character concept. Like if I want to use a flail instead of a longsword on my paladin, I don't have to worry about the flail having a +2 to disarm or whatever.


Oh I agree. Making a meaningful weapon differences is difficult and complex. It can be fun, but I don't think 5e is set up for it. Thus they didn't do it.

[Frenth Alunril]

I keep seeing Madmartigan at the fort, picking through the armory, choosing his weapons...

Each weapon has it's tricks, it's special secrets and it's history of use. Hell, just look at the history of the throwing axe, especially in France, and compare it with its dnd equivalent. Historically you threw your axe as part of a charge, at the ground in front of the opponent, knowing it would, with skill, bounce and tumble toward them in a surprisingly dangerous way, giving you advantage and possibly even harming them before you get there with a sword in hand. In dnd, we treat a throwing axe like a thrown knife, not that there aren't such weapons, but...

Weapons and their tricks are important in history and I believe, could be a form of "path" progression, but it would totally require a difficult "complete fighters" handbook variant to explain the variety of tricks, styles and exploits of weapons technologies. But then you would need the same thing for all classes.

(what I wouldn't give for a complete monk book focusing on the concept of different "schools" in the old kung fu sense)

[Yoroichi]

This issue with the. Weaopons exists for 2 reasons i think. First,this version sacrifices versatility in concepts for the sake of immersion.it does not matter what the paper says, because you might get a different effect on how you describe it.

Second, since magic weapons are rarer than before, if you find one you re gonna use it, and you wont be penalizeud for using it if you can switch weapons for your build. So this actually adds versatility it does not diminish it.

We recently house ruled the vitality/wounds system instead of hp but this has cost us some play speed. I think the focus of 5e is on immersion and speed of combat, not optimization.

Ipad post sry for errors

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think baking in weapon abilities really suffers when you start thinking about npcs and monsters. it's going to effect encounter difficulty if any random goblin or soldier with a polearm can burn a reaction to attack someone that enters their reach. Play speed will also suffer, and people will basically need to memorize the different weapons and what they do rather than just knowing a damage die.

[TripleD]

I think baking in weapon abilities really suffers when you start thinking about npcs and monsters. it's going to effect encounter difficulty if any random goblin or soldier with a polearm can burn a reaction to attack someone that enters their reach. Play speed will also suffer, and people will basically need to memorize the different weapons and what they do rather than just knowing a damage die.

What if Fighters, and only Fighters, could access these abilities? Think about it, Barbarians may do more damage, but Fighters are supposed to be more technically proficient. It makes sense that they would be the only ones able to make weapons do all these extra things.

[bloodshed343]

I don't agree with that at all. In the fantasy I'm familiar with, a character who is a skilled fighter has usually mastered a wide range of weapons. I don't typically see fighters who are sub-par if they pick up something other than their "build" weapon.

Fighting with a flail is different than fighting with a sword. If someone spends time and resources training with a flail, that training doesn't carry over to swords. They aren't any WORSE using a sword. They're still just as proficient with the sword as they were before. But they are MORE proficient with the flail than they were before.

[bloodshed343]

This issue with the. Weaopons exists for 2 reasons i think. First,this version sacrifices versatility in concepts for the sake of immersion.it does not matter what the paper says, because you might get a different effect on how you describe it.

Second, since magic weapons are rarer than before, if you find one you re gonna use it, and you wont be penalizeud for using it if you can switch weapons for your build. So this actually adds versatility it does not diminish it.

We recently house ruled the vitality/wounds system instead of hp but this has cost us some play speed. I think the focus of 5e is on immersion and speed of combat, not optimization.

Ipad post sry for errors

What if a dex-based dueling fighter finds a +1 greatsword? He doesn't have the proper abilities or feats to make use of a greatsword. The greatsword is worthless.

Now let's imagine a fighter with a flail who takes the appropriate feats for flails who finds a +1 longsword. The +1 bonus to attack and damage is, or should be, less valuable than the utility granted by the flail master feat. The fighter can keep it as a side arm against enemies with non-magical resistance, because he is still proficient with the sword and a variety of other weapons, but his normal routine would be unchanged.

Magic items are still valuable in this system, but your character's choices and training matter MORE than magic, which is the way it should be for a non-magical character.

[Cazero]

Introducing further distinction between weapons might seems like a good idea, but is actually a trap because of how inneffective the various way to implement it are.

First, feats. Introducing a feat tax in a ruleset like 5e where feats are rare, optionnals and in direct competition with ability score gains is not a good idea.

Second, class features. A weapon expertise class feature with different effect for each weapon category would be very long to describe and unavailable for core classes that should have it.

Third, integrated in weapon rules. It would open a whole nonsense cheese factory where every non martial would pick the same best utility effect weapon regardless of proficiency because they're not attacking for damage anyway.

And on top of that, balancing all these effects would be a pain regardless of the method used to include them.

[bloodshed343]

We already have "feat taxes" for different weapon groups. Great Weapon Master is for great weapons. Polearm Master for polearms. Crossbow Expert for arguing on the forums.

What we should have is more weapon feats for the other weapon groups. An "Axe Expert", a "Flail Expert", a "Heavy Blade Expert", etc, etc.

That way it would matter if a shield fighter were using a sword or a flail.

Ideally, these feats should be available to everyone but should be granted to the fighter for free. If only someone could come up with a class feature for the fighter that gave them bonus feats...

[odigity]

It's for the good of the vet population!

How else can the Druid serve nature by direclty helping repopulate the forest after a devastating fire?

Hmm... I guess the fertilized egg wouldn't have a chance to divide before the Wild Shape wears off, so maybe that wouldn't work anyway...

Speaking of genitals, according to the RAW for magic Rings, males have an advantage over females into stealth Ring-wearing:

"Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or a similar digit, for the ring's magic to function."

[pwykersotz]

How else can the Druid serve nature by direclty helping repopulate the forest after a devastating fire?

Hmm... I guess the fertilized egg wouldn't have a chance to divide before the Wild Shape wears off, so maybe that wouldn't work anyway...

Speaking of genitals, according to the RAW for magic Rings, males have an advantage over females into stealth Ring-wearing:

"Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or a similar digit, for the ring's magic to function."

:smalleek:

[Greylind]

How else can the Druid serve nature by direclty helping repopulate the forest after a devastating fire?

Hmm... I guess the fertilized egg wouldn't have a chance to divide before the Wild Shape wears off, so maybe that wouldn't work anyway...

Speaking of genitals, according to the RAW for magic Rings, males have an advantage over females into stealth Ring-wearing:

"Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or a similar digit, for the ring's magic to function."

I would assume a "similar digit" would actually include bones and joints.

[Z3ro]

I would assume a "similar digit" would actually include bones and joints.

Rulings not rules! I know how I'm running my game!

[Gnomes2169]

How else can the Druid serve nature by direclty helping repopulate the forest after a devastating fire?

Hmm... I guess the fertilized egg wouldn't have a chance to divide before the Wild Shape wears off, so maybe that wouldn't work anyway...

Speaking of genitals, according to the RAW for magic Rings, males have an advantage over females into stealth Ring-wearing:

"Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or a similar digit, for the ring's magic to function."

Cannot... Unsee... ;-;

As for the weapon discussion, be careful how marrow you make them. Too narrow and specific and it falls into the "only use greatswords" trap from previous editions, and martials begin to look a bit generic.

Flail master would be something like this, where it's only one speciic weapon and nothing more. Instead, something like Blugeoning weapons master (which I will mock-build with two others at the bottom of tgis post) would work better.

Similarly, instead of scimitar master you would have light weapons master, and instead of greatsword master it would be Swords master (though admittedly, this second category might be a bit too large).

As well, you would have to make sure you kept the mechanics generic enough that they can work with any weapons of the category. Keeping with the current example, let's look at a hypothetical blunt weapon, light weapon and swords master feat:

Blunt weapon master
-Requirement: 13 strength
-When you are wielding a club, greatclub, mace, morningstar, flail or maul and you successfully disarm, shove or trip a creature, you inflict greater penalties.
*Disarm: The creature is unable to freely interact with objects until the start of your next turn.
*Shove: The creature is pushed back an additional 5' and dealt 1d4+(Your strength modifier) blugeoning damage.
*Trip: The creature must use all of their movement to no longer be prone and is dealt 1d4+(Your strength modifier) blugeoning damage
-When you deal blugeoning damage to a creature wearing medium or heavy armor, that creature is unable to take a reaction until the start of your next turn.

I don't know quite how balanced this feat is, but I feel it is rather thematic. Blugeoning weapons were made to disable, batter down and otherwise break opponents, and they were employed almost exclusively to counter anyone wearing metal armor.

As well, keeping with the precident set by GWM, PM and XbX, blunt weapons master has an ability that functions with weapons not on the list, though I have limited it to blugeoning damage for fluff purposes.

Light weapons master
-Light weapons you wield land a critical hit on an attack roll of 19 or 20.
-If you are wielding a light melee weapon in one hand, you may use your bonus action to make a second attack with this weapon.
-If you are dual wielding light melee weapons, you may use your bonus action to make two attacks with your offhand weapon.

Light weapons are all about making quick, efficient attacks targeted at an opponent's vital areas. As such, the feat I made was designed around such a fighting style, trying to promote quantity of attacks over quality, and making their weaker criticals more commonplace than a heavier weapon's.

Unfortunately, I couldn't think of something general that would fit all other weapons like other master feats seem to have, so I just stuck with the light weapons theme instead.

Swords master
-Drawing a sword does not require your object interaction for the round.
-When you are wielding at least one sword you increase your armor class by +1.
-When you deal slashing damage to a creature, that creature must make a constitution save (DC 8+Your proficiency modifier+Your strength or dexterity modifier, your choice) or be dealt 1 bleeding damage at the start of their turn. This bleeding damage stacks, increasing by 1 with each successful attack. The bleeding may be stopped by a successful DC 15 medicine check, magical healing or regeneration.

Swords were not designed to kill people instantly (axes do that job much better). Instead, they were "defensive" weapons that could deflect blows while inflicting long, bleeding cuts along an opponent to bleed them out. They were very much meant for a "battle of attrition" or duel, and were designed to be drawn as quickly as possible.

I'm sure this feat is horribly overpowered (and it even works with axes, the inferior weapon *shudders*), but it more closely fits what I think the typical style of a sword fighter would be like.

More feats like this and fewer things like "Thunder maces" or "Trident master" would make more build options viable, while still keeping larger kinds of weapon selections open for viable character options. Just my 2 copper.

[Todasmile]

We already have the system needed here, it's just not implemented properly.

Fighting Styles. WotC clearly thought of what's being discussed in this topic, they just didn't think far enough.

Rework them. Fighting Styles aren't a choice you make at X level, but rather you gain the effects of all of your fighting styles, as long as you're wielding the appropriate weapons. Wielding two weapons? Great! You can draw your bow whenever you like and use Archery. Grab a claymore and start using that fighting style. Switch weapons in the middle of an Attack action and start using that fighting style.

Rework Champion's "second style" think into an expanded options list. Wielding Polearms? Get X benefit. Wielding swords? Get x benefit.

Although honestly I think that you could very easily make an argument for making the "expanded list" the base Fighting Style list and giving Champions a Weapon Focus that increases the effects and maybe they can change once per long/short rest.

As another alternative (or possibly for usage in tandem with the above), just make a martial progression system, like we have a spellcasting progression system. Each weapon has a specific set of abilities tied to it, and at certain values of martial progression you gain access to certain ones. Maybe you need a fighting style for it, maybe you don't. Obviously things like Paladin and Ranger would get half progression, while Fighter and possibly Barbarian would get full.

The amount of stuff you can do to make hack'n'slash characters interesting is astounding, and I've never understood how WotC can spend 70+ pages on various spells and not have the time to give a short paragraph detailing what's different between an axe and a sword. None of that "rulings not rules" bull either, since obviously one thing here is getting way more rules that the other.

[silveralen]

Champion fighter actually had something like that during the playtest, different weapon abilities based on damage type.

Also I'm liking the blunt weapon feat, gonna steal that maybe.

[bloodshed343]

Cannot... Unsee... ;-;

As for the weapon discussion, be careful how marrow you make them. Too narrow and specific and it falls into the "only use greatswords" trap from previous editions, and martials begin to look a bit generic.

Flail master would be something like this, where it's only one speciic weapon and nothing more. Instead, something like Blugeoning weapons master (which I will mock-build with two others at the bottom of tgis post) would work better.

Similarly, instead of scimitar master you would have light weapons master, and instead of greatsword master it would be Swords master (though admittedly, this second category might be a bit too large).

As well, you would have to make sure you kept the mechanics generic enough that they can work with any weapons of the category. Keeping with the current example, let's look at a hypothetical blunt weapon, light weapon and swords master feat:

Blunt weapon master
-Requirement: 13 strength
-When you are wielding a club, greatclub, mace, morningstar, flail or maul and you successfully disarm, shove or trip a creature, you inflict greater penalties.
*Disarm: The creature is unable to freely interact with objects until the start of your next turn.
*Shove: The creature is pushed back an additional 5' and dealt 1d4+(Your strength modifier) blugeoning damage.
*Trip: The creature must use all of their movement to no longer be prone and is dealt 1d4+(Your strength modifier) blugeoning damage
-When you deal blugeoning damage to a creature wearing medium or heavy armor, that creature is unable to take a reaction until the start of your next turn.

I don't know quite how balanced this feat is, but I feel it is rather thematic. Blugeoning weapons were made to disable, batter down and otherwise break opponents, and they were employed almost exclusively to counter anyone wearing metal armor.

As well, keeping with the precident set by GWM, PM and XbX, blunt weapons master has an ability that functions with weapons not on the list, though I have limited it to blugeoning damage for fluff purposes.

Light weapons master
-Light weapons you wield land a critical hit on an attack roll of 19 or 20.
-If you are wielding a light melee weapon in one hand, you may use your bonus action to make a second attack with this weapon.
-If you are dual wielding light melee weapons, you may use your bonus action to make two attacks with your offhand weapon.

Light weapons are all about making quick, efficient attacks targeted at an opponent's vital areas. As such, the feat I made was designed around such a fighting style, trying to promote quantity of attacks over quality, and making their weaker criticals more commonplace than a heavier weapon's.

Unfortunately, I couldn't think of something general that would fit all other weapons like other master feats seem to have, so I just stuck with the light weapons theme instead.

Swords master
-Drawing a sword does not require your object interaction for the round.
-When you are wielding at least one sword you increase your armor class by +1.
-When you deal slashing damage to a creature, that creature must make a constitution save (DC 8+Your proficiency modifier+Your strength or dexterity modifier, your choice) or be dealt 1 bleeding damage at the start of their turn. This bleeding damage stacks, increasing by 1 with each successful attack. The bleeding may be stopped by a successful DC 15 medicine check, magical healing or regeneration.

Swords were not designed to kill people instantly (axes do that job much better). Instead, they were "defensive" weapons that could deflect blows while inflicting long, bleeding cuts along an opponent to bleed them out. They were very much meant for a "battle of attrition" or duel, and were designed to be drawn as quickly as possible.

I'm sure this feat is horribly overpowered (and it even works with axes, the inferior weapon *shudders*), but it more closely fits what I think the typical style of a sword fighter would be like.

More feats like this and fewer things like "Thunder maces" or "Trident master" would make more build options viable, while still keeping larger kinds of weapon selections open for viable character options. Just my 2 copper.


I was already talking about weapon groups. Flail is a weapon set with only one member. I would add more flails along with the feat. The other groups would be great weapons, hammers and maces, polearms, axes, light blades, heavy blades, and spears. This has some overlap. A greatsword would be both a great weapon and a heavy blade. A halberd is both a polearm and an axe.

Anyway, on to feats:

Axe Master:
-As an action, you may attempt to perform a headsman's chop against a prone enemy within your reach. Make an attack roll with a -10 penalty. On a hit, the attack is a critical and does 1 die of extra damage. If this damage is more than half the enemy's remaining health, it dies.
-When you score a critical hit with an axe, you deal damage equal to your proficiency bonus to all enemies within 5 feet of the target.

Flail Master:
-When you hit an enemy with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, or scourge, you may use a bonus action to trip the target or disarm the target. If you trip the target, you may also pull them five feet. If you disarm the target, you may pull the weapon five feet.
-When you hit an enemy with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, or scourge, the enemy takes a -2 penalty to ac until the end of your next turn and can't dash.

[Gnomes2169]

Eh, I'd still say that flail master is too specific. Maybe Chain Master would work better? Then you could include weapons other than flails which are used in a similar manner (like chains and whips) to the list. That said, Flail Master's AC reduction is a little too strong. AC is very, very important this edition, and lowering it by 2 on a successful hit (which as it is written stacks with each hit) is a massive, massive feature. If you are using this feat in a game/ proposing this feat to a DM, I suggest making it something else.

[Longcat]

I think this is more competency than anything. In a lot of fiction (Conan for instance) I remember him wielding weapons differently, he hews and cleaves with an ax, while he holds back and pokes with the spear. But he is good at all of them and can make them all work.

I would think to model this would be a set of proficiency feats that unlock new fighting methods for all weapons. Like:
Weapon Trainee
Benefit: you gain ability 1 with all weapons. For axes ability 1 would be half damage is also dealt to armor worn by target. For great swords it's half-hand: ignore 2 points of DR. For spears it's set: deal double damage if you don't move and attack someone who moved.

Or whatever.

Then you'd get
Weapon Master
Prerequisite: minimum level 10, weapon trainee
Benefit: you gain ability 2 for each weapon. Which gives more.

And so on. They'll never do that though.

I really hope they will never implement feat chains, as they talked at length about the design philosophy and pretty much promised us that this will never happen.

[JoeJ]

I really hope they will never implement feat chains, as they talked at length about the design philosophy and pretty much promised us that this will never happen.

I absolutely agree with this. Given the limited number of feats a character can take, no feat should require another feat as a prerequisite.

[Lodraygazagtar]

No idea why he is. Can the cleric do anything about it?

[Oscredwin]

I think they could find a way to make something that felt like a feat chain in 5E. It might look something like this:

Feat Chain:
-Cool Ability
-Cool Ability
-Cool Ability that comes online level 8 and builds off earlier cool ability
-Cool Ability that comes online level 16 and builds off earlier cool abilities

One feat, and you're assumed to have taken the whole chain. Might be a little too good if you take it at level 16, and might be a little weak at level 1 or 4 but should be competitive with polearm master or XbowXpert at 16.

[SiuiS]

This metaphor is terrible. Circumcision would be paring something down to it's base functionality, not making it bad.

That's been weighing on me a while. XD

[eastmabl]

No idea why he is. Can the cleric do anything about it?

I don't think he wants to blow a 7th level spell on reversing the bris.

It would take two minutes for everything to grow back, but if you save the tip, it comes back immediately.

[silveralen]

This metaphor is terrible. Circumcision would be paring something down to it's base functionality, not making it bad.

That's been weighing on me a while. XD

Actually it works: At first glance you are removing something that serves no purpose and doesn't need to be there, but later on you find out you really sacrificed quite a bit of enjoyment unintentionally. The more you know :rainbows:

[Ellington]

If there's a mechanical difference between weapons, some weapons are probably going to be worse overall than other weapons. I don't want to feel bad just because my character wants to use an axe instead of a longsword. Having weapons be bland mechanically allows you to go with what you thematically like the most without worrying about crunch.

Except the trident.

[bloodshed343]

Eh, I'd still say that flail master is too specific. Maybe Chain Master would work better? Then you could include weapons other than flails which are used in a similar manner (like chains and whips) to the list. That said, Flail Master's AC reduction is a little too strong. AC is very, very important this edition, and lowering it by 2 on a successful hit (which as it is written stacks with each hit) is a massive, massive feature. If you are using this feat in a game/ proposing this feat to a DM, I suggest making it something else.


How about this:
Flail Master:
-When you hit with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may attempt to trip or disarm the enemy hit as a bonus action.
-When you hit with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may pull the enemy within 5 feet of you and attempt to grapple it.
-The first time you miss with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may roll the attack again against a different enemy within 5 feet of the first, dealing half damage on a hit.

And some other feats:

Light Blade Master:
-When you make an attack with a dagger, scimitar, short sword, or rapier, you may roll the attack twice, dealing half damage for each hit, and full damage on a critical hit.
-When you critically hit with a dagger, scimitar, short sword, or rapier, you deal extra damage equal to your proficiency modifier.

[pwykersotz]

Light Blade Master:
-When you make an attack with a scimitar, short sword, or rapier, you may roll the attack twice, dealing half damage for each hit.

Heh, I read that as Lightning Blade Master and I immediately thought that feat must be balanced because it doesn't grant a familiar. :smallbiggrin:

[Gnomes2169]

How about this:
Flail Master:
-When you hit with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may attempt to trip or disarm the enemy hit as a bonus action.
-When you hit with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may pull the enemy within 5 feet of you and attempt to grapple it.
-The first time you miss with an attack using a flail, triple-headed flail, scourge, whip, or spiked chain, you may roll the attack again against a different enemy within 5 feet of the first, dealing half damage on a hit.
Well, if you are dead set on calling this flail master instead of a more general chain master, I guess I'll just have to deal. :smalltongue:

The first two parts of the feat make you a wonderful controller, which is the point of chain weapons, and the third doesn't really seem to be all that necessary. You can and probably should cut it, given how superfluous it feels.


And some other feats:

Light Blade Master:
-When you make an attack with a scimitar, short sword, or rapier, you may roll the attack twice, dealing half damage for each hit.

This one doesn't seem to really do anything, and why is rapier (a non-light weapon) on the list? :smalltongue:

[bloodshed343]

Well, if you are dead set on calling this flail master instead of a more general chain master, I guess I'll just have to deal. :smalltongue:

The first two parts of the feat make you a wonderful controller, which is the point of chain weapons, and the third doesn't really seem to be all that necessary. You can and probably should cut it, given how superfluous it feels.



This one doesn't seem to really do anything, and why is rapier (a non-light weapon) on the list? :smalltongue:

The third part of the flail master feat is very important: it gives you an extra chance to apply your battlefield control. It's also great for dpr, turning a miss into half damage. Rogues can also get their full sneak attack bonus on the secondary attack.

As for light blade master, it's great for accuracy, which means it's great for rogues and monks. If you have a 50% chance to hit, there's only a 25% chance that BOTH attacks miss. If you have 60% chance to hit, there's only a 16% chance to do no damage. It's basically like having advantage on every attack, but wording it that way would make it mandatory for rogues. It also doubles your crit rate, so champion fighter loves it. (Half a crit is still better than a normal hit, but I think I should add that crits do full damage).

Edit: light blade master is now all about that crit, bout that crit (no failures).

Edit 2: the dpr of a champion fighter wielding two scimitars with the light blade master feat assuming a 60% chance to hit is:

(.45*(8.5/2)+.15*(8.5+6+6))*10 = 49.88. Which is not bad at all.

Compare to the same champion fighter using a great-sword and great weapon master:

(.2*(12+10)+.15*(8.5+12+10))*4 = 35.9

Which means that champions become useful! Hurray!

[Gnomes2169]

The third part of the flail master feat is very important: it gives you an extra chance to apply your battlefield control. It's also great for dpr, turning a miss into half damage. Rogues can also get their full sneak attack bonus on the secondary attack.
When I said it wasn't necessary, I meant that the feat was powerful enough without the third bullet. It is plenty useful enough without needing to ensure a hit, and already gives you another attack equivalent by spending your bonus action to trip or disarm.


As for light blade master, it's great for accuracy, which means it's great for rogues and monks. If you have a 50% chance to hit, there's only a 25% chance that BOTH attacks miss. If you have 60% chance to hit, there's only a 16% chance to do no damage. It's basically like having advantage on every attack, but wording it that way would make it mandatory for rogues. It also doubles your crit rate, so champion fighter loves it. (Half a crit is still better than a normal hit, but I think I should add that crits do full damage).

Edit: light blade master is now all about that crit, bout that crit (no failures).

Even with the improved crits clause, it's still a really, really weak feat. Scimitars and short swords are only dealing 8 damage on average per hit as is, and this feat cuts that down to 4. This is way, way to little damage, and while it increases accuracy, it also increases your chance of missing... By a lot.

Edit: Your DPR calculation forgot to divide the damage dealt by 2 (each attack is only dealing 1/2 damage, after all) and has an additional 6 added in the crit multipliers. It's actually a bit lower than you think...

[bloodshed343]

When I said it wasn't necessary, I meant that the feat was powerful enough without the third bullet. It is plenty useful enough without needing to ensure a hit, and already gives you another attack equivalent by spending your bonus action to trip or disarm.



Even with the improved crits clause, it's still a really, really weak feat. Scimitars and short swords are only dealing 8 damage on average per hit as is, and this feat cuts that down to 4. This is way, way to little damage, and while it increases accuracy, it also increases your chance of missing... By a lot.

Edit: Your DPR calculation forgot to divide the damage dealt by 2 (each attack is only dealing 1/2 damage, after all) and has an additional 6 added in the crit multipliers. It's actually a bit lower than you think...

The dpr calculation DOES divide the damage by 2, (see the 8.5/2?) and the extra 6 in the crit calculation comes from the second bullet of the feat (proficiency).

Also, it doubles your chance to apply sneak attack or monk ki features.

Comparing a single scimitar attack in a vacuum with a +3 attribute bonus to damage (so a character at 4th level) gives us:

With the feat: (.55*(6.5/2 (divided in half))+(.05*(6.5+6+2 [proficiency])))*2 = 5.6.

Without the feat (but +1 from ASI): (.6*7.5+.05*(7.5+6)) = 5.1.

Which means this feat is slightly better than an ASI in a vacuum and much better in certain builds. Which in my mind puts it on part with polearm master.

[Gnomes2169]

Remember that crits don't double your attribute bonus, so the crit line should read:

(Average weapon damagex2 (3.5 for a light weapon like a short sword or scimitar)+stat mod (3 in this example)+prof (2 in this example))/2

Or, (7+3+2)/2 (since the half damage clause is still cutting into your crits)... Or 6. A 6 damage crit on average. Multiply that by .05, and you get a .3 dpr from crits alone.

Now we'll add this to the %chance of a normal hit, and see what we get:

Assuming 60% accuracy: (.55((3.5+3)/2)+.3)x2= 4.175 dpr

With the ASI instead, accuracy increases to 65% and...: (.6(3.5+4)+.05(7+4)) or 4.5+.55= 5.05 DPR.

If taken at level 4 instead of the ABI, this feat does end up lowering your DPR. The reduced accuracy and lower base damage just isn't balanced out by the improved crits at this level, and the crits are actually weaker than normal attacks from using the base weapon's full damage. I'll admit that eventually the feat pays off with more damage if you can increase your crit range a bunch, but it will feel more like a death by 1000 paper cuts as your normal attacks only deal 3-5 damage and your crits only deal 6-11 damage with a +5 attribute and +6 proficiency mod on top of them, and from the gate your offensive dpr actually drops a bit on picking up this feat.

The problem is, yes. You are doublong your attacks... Which is amazing, but you are also doubling the attacks you must land to deal the same amount of damage as someone without the feat, and the person you are comparing to has to have not taken another feat that increases their offensive capabilities, or they have to have not increased their attack attribute. This is not good.

And while I love the bonus damage on a crit part... It feels like it should be part of a different feat. Maybe call it Deadly Blows... However, this is a different tangent entirely. I feel like light weapons should instead be focused on more attacks (which you tried to do, yes, but the method you used doesn't work out mathimatically unless you are much higher in level), and on exploiting weaknesses in armor maybe on increasing the weapon damage itself. I think maybe I'll make a revised version of my proposed Light Weapons Master at the bottom of this post to give you an idea of what I'm looking at here...

In fact, here we go, two feats for things!

Deadly Blows
Requirements: Strength or Dexterity 13
-Whenever you roll damage with a weapon attack and all weapon dice rolled show their maximum number, you add another weapon die to the damage. This feature only works once per attack.
-Whenever you critical hit a creature, you add your proficiency bonus to the critical's damage roll.

Light weapons master (revised)
Requirement: Dexterity 13
-When you attack with a light weapon you critical on a roll of 19 or 20.
-Light weapons you wield in your main hand have their die size increased by 1 (1d4 becomes 1d6, and 1d6 becomes 1d8.)
-When dual wielding light weapon you may use your bonus action to make two attacs with your off hand weapon.

[bloodshed343]

Remember that crits don't double your attribute bonus, so the crit line should read:

(Average weapon damagex2 (3.5 for a light weapon like a short sword or scimitar)+stat mod (3 in this example)+prof (2 in this example))/2

Or, (7+3+2)/2 (since the half damage clause is still cutting into your crits)... Or 6. A 6 damage crit on average. Multiply that by .05, and you get a .3 dpr from crits alone.

Now we'll add this to the %chance of a normal hit, and see what we get:

Assuming 60% accuracy: (.55((3.5+3)/2)+.3)x2= 4.175 dpr

With the ASI instead, accuracy increases to 65% and...: (.6(3.5+4)+.05(7+4)) or 4.5+.55= 5.05 DPR.

If taken at level 4 instead of the ABI, this feat does end up lowering your DPR. The reduced accuracy and lower base damage just isn't balanced out by the improved crits at this level, and the crits are actually weaker than normal attacks from using the base weapon's full damage. I'll admit that eventually the feat pays off with more damage if you can increase your crit range a bunch, but it will feel more like a death by 1000 paper cuts as your normal attacks only deal 3-5 damage and your crits only deal 6-11 damage with a +5 attribute and +6 proficiency mod on top of them, and from the gate your offensive dpr actually drops a bit on picking up this feat.

The problem is, yes. You are doublong your attacks... Which is amazing, but you are also doubling the attacks you must land to deal the same amount of damage as someone without the feat, and the person you are comparing to has to have not taken another feat that increases their offensive capabilities, or they have to have not increased their attack attribute. This is not good.



If you notice, the feat says that crits do full damage, not half.

If you notice, the second calculation includes a +1 to hit and damage from taking an ASI.

Also, crits maximize the regular dice roll then add another. In this case, for the scimitar, a crit does 6 [maximized damage roll] + 3 [stat] + 3.5 [expected result of 1d6] + 2 [proficiency].

So, again, I refer you to my previous calculations.

[Gnomes2169]

If you notice, the feat says that crits do full damage, not half.

Ah, I didn't notice that bit. So the average bump for a crit would be a .6, not a .3, sorry. Bringing the average DPR to 4.475 instead of 4.1.


If you notice, the second calculation includes a +1 to hit and damage from taking an ASI.
Indeed it does! Though I got a different number due to using different crit calculations... by .05. And on that subject...


Also, crits maximize the regular dice roll then add another. In this case, for the scimitar, a crit does 6 [maximized damage roll] + 3 [stat] + 3.5 [expected result of 1d6] + 2 [proficiency].

Actually, no. Maximizing the base and then adding another die on top was in the later playtests, but that was cut and edited in the final version. Critical hits are run like so:


Critical hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and add your relevant modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's sneak attack feature, your roll those dice twice as well.

This is what you do for a critical hit. So the average crit for a scimitar/ short sword is 7+mod, not 9.5+mod, and this does modify the average results of your calculations quite a bit. If you run them again with this, you will find that your results are both a bit lower as far as the expected calculations go, with the average damage from the feat taking the biggest blow of the two styles.

[SiuiS]

Actually it works: At first glance you are removing something that serves no purpose and doesn't need to be there, but later on you find out you really sacrificed quite a bit of enjoyment unintentionally. The more you know :rainbows:

Yeah, that would work for maybe if the fighter lost full casting or something? But for going from fighter to fighter, then... No. Because function remains and is sufficient for anything, even if it's slightly less the best possible thing.

[silveralen]

Yeah, that would work for maybe if the fighter lost full casting or something? But for going from fighter to fighter, then... No. Because function remains and is sufficient for anything, even if it's slightly less the best possible thing.

The idea being that removing differences between weapons ultimately impedes enjoyment for fighter further down the line, even if it still functions perfectly well.

[Sartharina]

Actually it works: At first glance you are removing something that serves no purpose and doesn't need to be there, but later on you find out you really sacrificed quite a bit of enjoyment unintentionally. The more you know :rainbows:Not unintentionally. It's more like reigning in something that has a chance of becoming an overwhelming focus, allowing/encouraging the character to emphasize and develop in other areas instead.

[silveralen]

Not unintentionally. It's more like reigning in something that has a chance of becoming an overwhelming focus, allowing/encouraging the character to emphasize and develop in other areas instead.

I was explaining the metaphor, not arguing that's actually how it'll work out in game.

[Sartharina]

I was explaining the metaphor, not arguing that's actually how it'll work out in game.I was explaining the metaphor as well.