Weapon System Idea: DEX and/or STR Requirements for Weapons, Prof to damage

[Easy_Lee]

I know that it bothers a lot of us, myself included, that weapons use a specific statistic for their attack and damage rolls. Because of the huge negative effect of a missed +1, it's difficult to use a greatsword without maximum strength or a bow without maximum dexterity.

This is not especially immersive. One ought to be able to use a longsword with some combination of strength and dexterity. Some weapons, such as a maul, would be almost all strength, whereas others, such as a rapier, would take some measure of dexterity no matter how strong you are. This is not reflected in the game mechanics.

This is not something I've fully fleshed out, but merely a concept that I am proposing.

Proposed System
The system attaches attribute requirements to specific weapon types, and replaces attribute bonus to attack and damage rolls with proficiency.

Finesse: this weapon property is removed from the game. Features which reference finesse now act as though all weapons are effectively finesse. Monk weapons now describe those weapons monks are proficient with, and which work with their martial arts, and no longer mention dexterity.

Attribute Requirements: For each weapon, there is a strength and dexterity requirement to use the weapon proficiently. Sample weapon requirements (ballpark numbers):
Dagger - 12 dexterity, no strength requirement
Shortsword - 14 dexterity, 8 strength
Rapier - 16 dexterity, 10 strength
Longsword - 14 dexterity, 14 strength
Longbow - 16 dexterity, 12 strength
Heavy Crossbow - 16 dexterity, 14 strength
Greatsword - 16 strength, 12 dexterity
Greataxe - 16 strength, 8 dexterity
Maul - 17 strength, no dexterity requirement

If you meet the attribute requirements, and are proficient with the weapon, you may use the weapon proficiently. If you lack either proficiency with the weapon or the required attributes, you may not use the weapon proficiently.

Proficiency bonus: Instead of adding your proficiency bonus to attack rolls, add double that number. Also add this number to your damage rolls.

Effects of the System
This system changes the balance between casters and mundanes. It allows players to use weapons effectively without maxing out their melee attributes, though players will still want high attributes if they enter melee often. It allows weapons to be used by a wider variety of character types

Caster Balance: As you may notice, this has an interesting effect if casters are left alone. Compare a 1st level wizard with 16 intelligence casting an attack cantrip, to a 1st level fighter with 16 strength and 12 dexterity swinging a greatsword:
Wizard's attack roll: d20+2(prof)+3(int), mod = +5
Fighter's attack roll: d20+4(prof*2), mod = +4

Casters have a little bit easier time hitting with their spells at low levels. Since casters have trouble competing with melees at the earliest levels, I think that this is beneficial. Now, consider high levels; let's do the same thing at level 17, when both have maxed their attributes:
Wizard's attack roll: d20+6(prof)+5(int), mod = +11
Fighter's attack roll: d20+12(prof*2), mod = +12

So at the levels where caster advantage really takes off, the mundane fellows are able to hit just a little bit harder and more accurately than they normally could (+1 higher).

So what are my stats for, then? Strength and dexterity still affect skills, saves, armor selection / AC, and initiative for dexterity. You still need strength for effective shoves and grapples. You still need dexterity for good lightly armored AC and initiative. So you still want to max out your strength and / or dexterity as a dedicated melee fighter. But your attributes no longer dictate how skilled and effective you are with your weapon; experience controls that. Your attributes just say which weapons you're capable of wielding.

Other Implications
Strong rogues and dexterous fighters are now possible without having to fully dedicate to those stats. A rogue could wield a greatsword as long as he gets his strength up high enough and has proficiency with the weapon. (Since rogues could do this in previous editions, I don't see this as a balance problem.) A fighter who normally fights with a maul can whip out a longbow, using it to its fullest without needing the maximum dexterity.

Gish characters no longer have to max out their attack statistic, becoming as strong as a fighter or as dexterous as a rogue. They can instead focus on their casting statistic and get their melee attributes up to acceptable levels for their chosen weapons and armor. Medium and heavy armor proficiency will matter much more to these types, since they allow for acceptable AC without maxed dexterity.

For the above reasons, the weapon master and various armor feats will be much more beneficial, instead of being largely overlooked as they are now. A rogue may very well want to pick up proficiency with a polearm. A wizard might want proficiency with heavy armor, so that he can have decent AC without casting mage armor and maximizing his dexterity. Fighters, since they have proficiency with everything already, will have that advantage over other classes, and will do well no matter what weapons or armor are available.

Immersion: not every fighter is a roided-out monster now. Not every rogue is a scrawny manlet who moves like a dancer. You can no longer judge one's fighting ability by looking at his muscles or checking how good he is at back flips. The strength and dexterity of those you meet, and those characters you play, will vary widely rather than always trending towards specific extremes.

[Knaight]

These are some really high stat requirements. Not a single weapon on your list can be effectively wielded by a 10 strength 10 dex person, and while the typical soldier probably can be assumed to be a cut above average in the strength department, 12 strength and 12 dex doesn't open up all that much. I'd be hesitant to go above a 13 for a requirement, and even then that's something like 13 strength for particularly heavy polearms. The one major exception is actually bows, as draw weight is a design variable that does absolutely demand a level of strength well above the human norm sometimes.

Now, individual magic items or particular things designed for especially strong people? That's a different ball game. I have zero problems with something like Odysseus's bow or Achilles's spear requiring 18 strength. Every maul taking 17? That's pretty hefty. I can use various hammers just fine, and there's no way I'd be modeled with 17 strength.

[Easy_Lee]

These are some really high stat requirements. Not a single weapon on your list can be effectively wielded by a 10 strength 10 dex person, and while the typical soldier probably can be assumed to be a cut above average in the strength department, 12 strength and 12 dex doesn't open up all that much. I'd be hesitant to go above a 13 for a requirement, and even then that's something like 13 strength for particularly heavy polearms. The one major exception is actually bows, as draw weight is a design variable that does absolutely demand a level of strength well above the human norm sometimes.

Now, individual magic items or particular things designed for especially strong people? That's a different ball game. I have zero problems with something like Odysseus's bow or Achilles's spear requiring 18 strength. Every maul taking 17? That's pretty hefty. I can use various hammers just fine, and there's no way I'd be modeled with 17 strength.

I actually thought about that. A person proficient with a greatsword adds their proficiency to the attack roll. However, they add their proficiency again to the attack roll and to the damage roll if they reach the desired stat. The numbers may be a bit high, but I picked them with players in mind, rather than NPCs. That said, I'm sure the numbers could be tweaked.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm not sure what tying it to stat minimums achieves? If you're optomizing one way or another you'll already hit the stat thresholds for whatever you want and turn on the bonus. You're not particulary more powerful with low stats and the bonus than high stats with the bonus. This seems to just create a "Your character must be this min/maxed to enter" for a lot cases.

Why not just make the bonuses something everybody gets? It's not like that increases the power ceiling or even the "power average for those looking to charOP" while having the benefit of not chump-blocking the guy who decides he wants to make all his stats even-stevens across the board because he thinks mario is cool.

This just lowers the power floor in a way that demands more system mastery to avoid.

[Kryx]

A person proficient with a greatsword adds their proficiency to the attack roll. However, they add their proficiency again to the attack roll and to the damage roll if they reach the desired stat.
So with bounded accuracy the chance to hit would scale to 100%?

Adding 2x prof to attack rolls seems like a bad idea.

[calebrus]

it's difficult to use a greatsword without maximum strength or a bow without maximum dexterity.

Please explain exactly how and why you consider this to be true.

edit:
Maybe I'm old as hell, but I remember a time when the stats you started with at level one were the stats you had until the day that you died, unless your DM was nice enough to give you a magic item which raised those stats, because raising your stats via levels was not a thing that existed.
Roll 3d6 six times, arrange them as you see fit, and friggin deal with it until you are forced to roll a new character.
Does this mean that anyone with less than 18/00 Strength couldn't use a weapon efficiently?
Of course it doesn't mean that! .... which means that statement you just made was simply not true.

Just because it cannot possibly mathematically get any better does not mean that it's "difficult to use."
Not by a long shot. That's the munchkin in you talking. You should gag him with a bandana or something.

[Giant2005]

There are at least two significant issues with this system that I can think of and they are both of a severity high enough that I can't even distinguish which is the bigger issue.
Firstly, it significantly reduces the level of variation between people. Two Fighters of equal level fighting against each other is going to be 50:50 who wins. It doesn't matter what their particular strengths and weaknesses are, they are going to have the same attack and damage rolls against each other. Characters of the same class may as well be carbon copies of one another.
Secondly, by uncoupling fighting talent from attributes, you have created a system where Martial characters no longer have the advantage in Martial combat. The Wizard that spends his ASIs boosting Int and Con will be just as talented with a sword as a Fighter that is boosting Con and whatever else he spends it on under this system. The only real difference between them is the number of attacks they have. For example, a level 10 Fighter simply wouldn't stand a chance against a pair of level 7 Wizards in martial combat and that just shouldn't be the case. These changes essentially start martial characters off weaker until level 13 when they meet their former potential and then at level 17 when they surpass it. Caster classes however get to laugh their way to the bank with what amounts to be a straight buff to them. Hoorray for caster supremecy, now brought to martial combat!

[Easy_Lee]

Please explain exactly how and why you consider this to be true
No


So with bounded accuracy the chance to hit would scale to 100%?

Adding 2x prof to attack rolls seems like a bad idea.
Not if you take away attribute to attack rolls. The difference is exactly +1. Under this system, melees will not need to max their relevant attribute immediately, to the exclusion of all else, for the sake of optimal play.


Firstly, it significantly reduces the level of variation between people. Two Fighters of equal level fighting against each other is going to be 50:50 who wins. It doesn't matter what their particular strengths and weaknesses are, they are going to have the same attack and damage rolls against each other. Characters of the same class may as well be carbon copies of one another.
Secondly, by uncoupling fighting talent from attributes, you have created a system where Martial characters no longer have the advantage in Martial combat. The Wizard that spends his ASIs boosting Int and Con will be just as talented with a sword as a Fighter that is boosting Con and whatever else he spends it on under this system. The only real difference between them is the number of attacks they have. For example, a level 10 Fighter simply wouldn't stand a chance against a pair of level 7 Wizards in martial combat and that just shouldn't be the case. These changes essentially start martial characters off weaker until level 13 when they meet their former potential and then at level 17 when they surpass it. Caster classes however get to laugh their way to the bank with what amounts to be a straight buff to them. Hoorray for caster supremecy, now brought to martial combat!

Number one is already true. Two fighter PCs with greatswords will have identical stats if they are playing even close to optimally, assuming point buy or standard array. Under this system, PCs could choose whether they want to build up this or that stat, not making decisions solely based on their combat +1s.

Number 2, oh boy, let's see if I can address all of this:

Casters have lower health, lower AC (barring picking up armor proficiencies), and lower everything in melee than martials. A wizard has the least HP and has no extra attack. It will take closer to two wizards per attack to threaten a fighter under any system. And under the current system, most wizards invest in dexterity and have a maximum of +2 difference between their attacks and a fighters. So what was your point?
As said, the difference between a fighter and a wizard is so far beyond their number of attacks that I have no idea why you made this statement.
Casters are weaker at low levels and stronger at high levels. The only negative impact this change can have is -1 / +1 for anyone with reasonable stats. Not only does that not make much of a difference, but the disadvantage / advantage coincide perfectly with disadvantage / advantage for casters.
Casters are unaffected since they should never be making melee attacks in the first place. The only type of caster that can honestly be said to have been "buffed" by this is a gish, who no longer must max two stats in order to merely compete with others.
Did you do the math before you mentioned caster supremacy? All of the math and systems that I have seen show martials, particularly frenzy barbarians, out-damaging and out-lasting casters in combat at all levels. This system does not really affect that, in any way, as the number difference is only ever 1 point.
It's actually a buff to martials, because their eventual potential increases and they can use a wider variety of weapons effectively without maxing two statistics.

[calebrus]

No

Interesting.
If you cannot systematically and mathematically prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you said is true, then it is untrue.
That just happens to be the exact argument that you make almost every single time someone disagrees with you about what is or is not balanced.
So now I call upon you to do the same.
Convince me that using a weapon without a max stat is "difficult," or render your opening statement false.

[eastmabl]

Given how revolutionary that this is when squared with 5e as written.... isn't the proper home for this perhaps in the homebrew design forum?

[Giant2005]

The mention about Caster Supremecy was made because that is what this system would bring into existence, not because of it already existing. The game is currently balanced pretty well. If you take a game and buff the casters, then the casters are then superior. As I said, two slightly lower leveled casters would easily defeat a level 10 Fighter in melee combat. Between the two of them they have more than enough HP to match the Fighter and can match his attacks. You might be okay with that but I don't think a Fighter should be so easily matched by a couple of people that have no business picking up a sword.
Having said that, the Fighter is the class that loses the most from the transaction (Except for maybe the Monk). The other classes like the Barbarian that no longer has to care about Str that can now boost his AC to absurd levels without consequence or the Rogue that can now use any weapon he likes; have been genuinely buffed by your proposal. But I'm not sure I like that either. By your changes interacting with some classes better than others, you are creating a situation of haves and have nots. Some people already make fun of the Fighter and claim he sucks, there is no need to push him further behind the curve.
When I proposed the original system that you retrofitted for this, it was designed for Two-Weapon Fighting: a system that is demonstrably worse than its peers and has enough exclusivity that it wouldn't screw up the balance at large. By taking that principle and applying it to anything and everything, you have created a whole slew of balance related consequences that are a step in the wrong direction.

[Kryx]

Given how revolutionary that this is when squared with 5e as written.... isn't the proper home for this perhaps in the homebrew design forum?
Where ideas go to die? That forum is poorly placed to include every edition and has 1/100th of the readership as a result of its placing.

[Theodoxus]

The mention about Caster Supremecy was made because that is what this system would bring into existence, not because of it already existing. The game is currently balanced pretty well. If you take a game and buff the casters, then the casters are then superior. As I said, two slightly lower leveled casters would easily defeat a level 10 Fighter in melee combat. Between the two of them they have more than enough HP to match the Fighter and can match his attacks. You might be okay with that but I don't think a Fighter should be so easily matched by a couple of people that have no business picking up a sword.
Having said that, the Fighter is the class that loses the most from the transaction (Except for maybe the Monk). The other classes like the Barbarian that no longer has to care about Str that can now boost his AC to absurd levels without consequence or the Rogue that can now use any weapon he likes; have been genuinely buffed by your proposal. But I'm not sure I like that either. By your changes interacting with some classes better than others, you are creating a situation of haves and have nots. Some people already make fun of the Fighter and claim he sucks, there is no need to push him further behind the curve.
When I proposed the original system that you retrofitted for this, it was designed for Two-Weapon Fighting: a system that is demonstrably worse than its peers and has enough exclusivity that it wouldn't screw up the balance at large. By taking that principle and applying it to anything and everything, you have created a whole slew of balance related consequences that are a step in the wrong direction.

Personally, I think this, as a global solution, in a game where there is no PvP and players are facing the majority of their encounters against book monsters and not stated NPCs - works.

It takes calebrus' observation that the game pre-3rd ed, didn't grant attribute bonuses - so this would be a sufficient, nay, elegant way of not needing them - allowing for more feat purchases (and practically demanding new feats to fill the gap and perhaps provide some attribute influence on weapon rolls.)

But your reticence is duly noted. A bit heavy handed, imo, but given recent history on homebrew/houserule discussions, not unwarranted.

[coredump]

I think this will have terrible repurcussions.

1) For martial types, it makes it even harder to gain proficiency. You are adding requirements for weapon use that did not exist before.

2) For martial types, they will be *less* likely to hit, and do *less* damage. So that is three penalties already.

3) For non-martial types, with many weapons they will be just as good as the martial types, with very minimal investment.

4) Your system add a *lot* of complexity for very little gain. Your goal of "A fighter who normally fights with a maul can whip out a longbow, using it to its fullest without needing the maximum dexterity." Would require a 17 Str and 16 Dex. At 10th level that means +8/+4; with the current system, they are still +7/+3; but if they wanted, they could be +8/+4 or even +9/+5 by boosting their stats.

5) No one will have a Str above 16. No reason to. And even that is now just a 'tax' to get to GS, (assuming halberd and glaive have the same restrictions)

6) Currently, martial types have variability from selecting feats vs ASI as they level. This will remove almost all of that.

I keep thinking of more problems.... but I will stop here.

[Torched Forever]

While this system is interesting the idea of weapon requirements form a problem. The requirements limit weapon choices and make some choices strictly inferior. Why bother investing four points into Dex for a greatsword when you can use a greataxe and focus on abilities that reroll one attack die? Another problem I see is that as long as they have the requirements a Fighter and a Wizard can wield a weapon to the same effect (ignoring class features). This system makes martial weaker but scale better, allows casters to be potent in melee, and ruins half-casters by forcing them to have two physical stats (besides Con) instead of the one stat they needed before.

[Theodoxus]

I've yet to play a game where a caster opted to use a melee weapon, when they had cantrips available to them.

I'm playing a cleric in my latest game, and though I have a 16 Dex and can use a rapier (thanks to starting as a rogue) I haven't swung it, since Sacred Flame is superior.

We have a warlock who started as a fighter, and runs around in plate with a longsword and shield - and uses EB exclusively - from as far away as possible.

The wizard I DM'd in the game previous swung her staff once, because she was testing to see if the critter had damage resistance.

This idea that casters will suddenly wade into melee to hit with inferior weapons instead of staying at range and hitting with cantrips is patently false and a strawman argument.

[VoxRationis]

Those requirements are definitely too high. 16 Dexterity, just to use a rapier? 16 anything is a paltry section of humanity—no one would bother to even develop weapons for common use that could only be used by a tiny fraction of humans, even with top-notch training.

Don't get me wrong; I think ability score requirements for weapons can be used well. But the concerns other people voiced about all the fighters being the same are hard to quell. Of course, that's partly true as is because of the unified, consistent bonus-per-ability-score-value, but removing ability score bonuses from the equation definitely doesn't improve things.

Edit: Oh, and the Strength requirement for crossbows in particular is backwards—crossbows are useful because they require less strength for the same power you would get in a bow! They do this by allowing you to draw with less strength for a longer period—kind of like moving something up a ramp instead of just lifting it straight up—with the trade-off of slower draw than a bow.

[Giant2005]

I've yet to play a game where a caster opted to use a melee weapon, when they had cantrips available to them.

I'm playing a cleric in my latest game, and though I have a 16 Dex and can use a rapier (thanks to starting as a rogue) I haven't swung it, since Sacred Flame is superior.

We have a warlock who started as a fighter, and runs around in plate with a longsword and shield - and uses EB exclusively - from as far away as possible.

The wizard I DM'd in the game previous swung her staff once, because she was testing to see if the critter had damage resistance.

This idea that casters will suddenly wade into melee to hit with inferior weapons instead of staying at range and hitting with cantrips is patently false and a strawman argument.

It isn't that casters have a reason to be using weapons, it is that they don't really have a reason not to be using weapons (Until they get Warcaster at least). My Wizard always carried around a weapon until he got Warcaster just for the occasional Opportunity Attack.
As an aside, your Cleric really should be/have making/made more use of that Rapier of his. At levels 1-4, the 1D8+1D6+3 damage is far superior to a flat 1D8 and at levels 5-8 the 1D8+1D6+3 is still superior to 2D8. It is only at levels 9+ that your cantrip starts winning on damage and that is only if your Domain is of the +wis to Cantrips variety and you only took 2 or less levels of Rogue.

[Torched Forever]

I've yet to play a game where a caster opted to use a melee weapon, when they had cantrips available to them.

I'm playing a cleric in my latest game, and though I have a 16 Dex and can use a rapier (thanks to starting as a rogue) I haven't swung it, since Sacred Flame is superior.

We have a warlock who started as a fighter, and runs around in plate with a longsword and shield - and uses EB exclusively - from as far away as possible.

The wizard I DM'd in the game previous swung her staff once, because she was testing to see if the critter had damage resistance.

This idea that casters will suddenly wade into melee to hit with inferior weapons instead of staying at range and hitting with cantrips is patently false and a strawman argument.

It allows for a powerful 'just in case' defensive mechanism. Anti-magic field? Silence? Enemies with resistance to spells/damage type? Just whip out your weapon and deal out damage equal to martial (at low levels). What balances casters (at least to me) is that over time they lose their array of options and become vulnerable. If you allow them to be too competent in combat then they will burn through their spells knowing they can resort to melee combat.

Part of the problem is the prof only to attack & damage. A martial who has trained hard in his craft (lv. 4 Fighter) has the same damage and to hit as the wizard picking up a sword for the first time in years. This problem disappears at high levels but makes casters the arbitrary choice at low levels(where most people play). Why play a martial that only becomes balanced at latter levels when casters get more accurate cantrips and equal melee power early on and become balanced latter on?

The requirements still make half-casters weaker and certain weapons just better than others. Also, VoxRationis, your point about rapiers (a historically civilian weapon) being only usable by super-humans makes a ton of sense. Not to mention crossbows (ranged weapon for conscripts) having ridiculous requirements.

[D-naras]

I think this idea makes sense. It would definitely work if the game was designed like that from the beginning.

Ability score requirements for weapons make sense when (some) armor has them. Were I to design this I would go about it like this:


Remove ability modifiers from all damage and attack rolls. Even spells. Replace the ability modifier for damage with proficiency and make attack rolls use twice the proficiency bonus for attack rolls. No reason for spells to hurt more if you are more charismatic and weapons to hurt the same regardless of strength. Pros: Static damage bonuses scale naturally all the way to 17th level, instead of up to 8th level when a character can max his relevant ability. Also gives more leeway in choosing feats or ASI for other purposes besides damage. Cons: Makes static damage the same for every character, which admittedly it kinda is already. I personally don't mind this at all.

Give melee weapons a Strength score requirement ranging from none to a maximum of 15. Racial weapon proficiencies ignore the requirements. Finesse weapons can use Dex instead of Strength for satisfying the requirements. Light weapons should have no requirements. Two-handed weapons should have 13, 15 if they are heavy. Other weapons should have 10-12. Crossbows should have a dexterity requirement of 10 to 13 and shortbows and longbows have both dexterity and strength requirements in the ballpark of 10-13. If you are proficient with a weapon, you may use twice your proficiency modifier on the attack roll and once on the damage roll. If you are not proficient then you don't add your proficiency modifier anywhere. If you don't satisfy the ability score requirements, you have Disadvantage on the attack roll. Pros: More ways to differentiate weapons and stronger ties between race and weapons. Cons: Increased complexity.

[Person_Man]

I applaud your general idea Easy. Have you tried running any test sessions using your new math?

[Easy_Lee]

I applaud your general idea Easy. Have you tried running any test sessions using your new math?

None, I wanted to flesh out the system first and find any obvious problems. I suspect that a system similar to this would work better with a game built to accommodate it. For example, if all mechanics worked off of proficiency, rather than just some of them, then it would be more acceptable to have this kind of thing. As is, someone will always be able to find a character of concept negatively affected by a given change, just because there are so many rules in D&D.

It's tough to balance systems when there are so many moving parts, and when we the players can't collectively agree on what "balanced" actually means.

[MrStabby]

I think the system may have some merit but not for D&D and certainly not for 5th edition.

I certainly don't want to get into too much by way of complaining about details and specifics. I will assume this is posted as a concept rather than a final polished product.

At a simple level it does somewhat reduce close-combat damage at early levels not only due to lower rolls to hit but also due to people without bolstered stats having lower damage weapons. Practically I don't think this will have a huge effect although it may make some combats a bit more tactical as things like grapple and shove become better value than stabbing things.

As people noted there are diminishing returns to increasing strength and dexterity. This is both good and bad. Firstly it closes off a lot of options for martial characters - what is the point of all of those ASIs that a fighter gets if he only gets small benefits from good stats?

The other point (which may be good or bad) is that it opens up builds that wouldn't be played before due to being too MAD. Once you reach the stats needed for your desired weapon (say as a Barbarian) you can rase Charisma and get a spot of paladin.

Then there are the things that break the game. Rogues with claymores don't bother me but rogues with halberds do, simply because polearm mastery makes opportunity attacks so much easier to come by. I certainly think a guy attacking from the shadows with a huge battleaxe is very cool, but some classes would have to be reworked to accommodate it.

By my own values of what I like in the game I would say:

Pro:
Helps more diverse multiclassing
Encourages more feats to be used earlier
Greater variety of different weapons used

Con:
Makes higher level character development more boring
Causes severe balance issues with some classes and some conflicts (like how is Shillelagh supposed to work?)
Simply obviates certain class advantages (like the monk)

Other thoughts - maybe let it open up other options for other weapons, especially as it will require you to redo most of these for balance anyway? Maybe a charisma requirement for feinting weapons? A Constitution requirement for weaponst that require massive endurance to carry around? An intelligence requirement to maintain and operate more sophisticated weapons like crossbows? At least this would open up some stats for fighters to invest their ASIs in to get more versatility.

Personally, I don't think 5th needs a change, I don't think that this is the change it would need anyway but always happy that people are exploring ways of making characters more interesting.

[Theodoxus]

It isn't that casters have a reason to be using weapons, it is that they don't really have a reason not to be using weapons (Until they get Warcaster at least). My Wizard always carried around a weapon until he got Warcaster just for the occasional Opportunity Attack.
Do you find yourself getting OAs? I've played some very tactical games, and ran similar, and without artificial creations, like Polearm Master or Sentinel - OAs have never come up. If someones in combat and has to leave, they Disengage. Players have provoked, especially when they see that it takes a high (18+) roll to even hit them, but I've never had opponents provoke - just isn't worth it.

As an aside, your Cleric really should be/have making/made more use of that Rapier of his. At levels 1-4, the 1D8+1D6+3 damage is far superior to a flat 1D8 and at levels 5-8 the 1D8+1D6+3 is still superior to 2D8. It is only at levels 9+ that your cantrip starts winning on damage and that is only if your Domain is of the +wis to Cantrips variety and you only took 2 or less levels of Rogue.
Good point. The only combat I've been in was against a hydra, and I wasn't about to wade into the water to stick it with my blade. The monk was having enough trouble as it was, and we were scrounging for fire. Turns out, our only reliable source was said monk and her flaming fists of doom. She ended up having to ready actions for when we did enough damage to knock out a head (the DM ended up taming the hydra down quite a bit, as we couldn't actually affect it long term).

Going forward, I'll probably stab things more.

[LordVonDerp]

You appear to have made the classic mistake of assuming that a two handed sword requires more strength than a one handed sword, when in fact I is the other way around.

[Person_Man]

It's tough to balance systems when there are so many moving parts, and when we the players can't collectively agree on what "balanced" actually means.

Yes, this is definitely true.

But the 5E math is actually pretty simple when you think about it. Modifiers range from +0ish to +11ish, Advantage/Disadvantage exists for special abilities, and at-will damage basically averages around 11ish + 1.75ish per level +/- 20%ish per round. (Basically just follow the Rogue's Sneak Attack progression, though its rarely that linear).

Personally, I have a strong desire to simplify the base system as much as possible (including weapons, armor, subclasses, etc), and to build in complexity through magic items or some other DM controlled resource. That way the game would be infinitely easier to learn and start playing, but would still have plenty of depth to it as you progress in levels.

[Talderas]

Do you find yourself getting OAs? I've played some very tactical games, and ran similar, and without artificial creations, like Polearm Master or Sentinel - OAs have never come up. If someones in combat and has to leave, they Disengage. Players have provoked, especially when they see that it takes a high (18+) roll to even hit them, but I've never had opponents provoke - just isn't worth it.

The answer is party composition of both friend and foe. Characters, friend or foe, don't disengage because the probability of being hit is low. Casting spells like faerie fire or having a bard that uses vicious mockery on players is going to make them wary of exiting from combat with disengaging (faerie fire making it easier to be hit) or allow the enemies to more confidently leave combat without disengage (vicious mockery making it hard to hit).

I've also managed to score enough OAs with dissonant whispers, for both myself and teammates.

[MrStabby]

Personally, I have a strong desire to simplify the base system as much as possible (including weapons, armor, subclasses, etc), and to build in complexity through magic items or some other DM controlled resource. That way the game would be infinitely easier to learn and start playing, but would still have plenty of depth to it as you progress in levels.

I am a little surprised by this. Personally I would much rather my character was shaped by my choices on how to develop it than what my DM decides I should use.

I actually really like 5th type low magic for a similar reason. Nothing like getting a holy avenger to make you feel that the ssubtle aspects of your characters development don't really mater so much any more.

[ChubbyRain]

I much prefer the 13th age method of weapons.

Each class gets a table and shows how good they are with certain types of weapons. Damage is based on that table, not the weapon itself.

So a rogue and a wizard are holding a dagger. The rogue will do base d8+Dex damage while the wizard deals base d4+strength damage.

The wizard doesn't know how to use the dagger to inflict as much pain AND they don't know how to hold the dagger so that they are graceful with it.

I say D&D needs to get rid of the weapon tables. Make types of weapons and let the players describe the weapon as they see fit. Add in general feats that work with weapon types.

So if my fighter has a two handed weapon that has reach then I may deal 1d10 damage but if I don't have reach (different catagory) it may deal 1d12 damage.

Get rid of the 2d6 weapons. They screw with a lot of things. Class determines what ability scores you can use for attack and damage. Warriors will be choice betqeen Str or Dex, some hybrids will be str or will be Dex, and casters will be strength only.

General Ruleals, some exception may be made to fit fluff or basic idea of said class.

Primary Warrior Types:
One handed 1d8
Two handed: 1d12
Two handed reach: 1d10
1 Handed Range: 1d6
2 Handed Range: 1d8

Hybrids
One handed 1d6
Two handed: 1d10
Two handed reach: 1d8
1 Handed Range: 1d4
2 Handed Range: 1d6

Casters
One handed 1d4
Two handed: 1d8
Two handed reach: 1d6
1 Handed Range: 1d2
2 Handed Range: 1d4

If you are not proficient with the weapon type then you always take disadvantage on the attack.

Needs some work but that's my spitball idea on the subject. Mix 13th age with 5e.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Each class gets a table and shows how good they are with certain types of weapons. Damage is based on that table, not the weapon itself.

So a rogue and a wizard are holding a dagger. The rogue will do base d8+Dex damage while the wizard deals base d4+strength damage.

The wizard doesn't know how to use the dagger to inflict as much pain AND they don't know how to hold the dagger so that they are graceful with it.

I say D&D needs to get rid of the weapon tables. Make types of weapons and let the players describe the weapon as they see fit. Add in general feats that work with weapon types.

That does sound pretty good. At least, better than what we have now. Mainly because I kinda think weapons are a big part of my character's image, and I don't want to sacrifice a lot of effectiveness for flavor when it would be so easy to avoid it. Weapon tables are one of my biggest pet peeves in RPGs nowadays. While I have some problems with the system you're describing, it would be functional, and probably fit into DnD really well.

If we're bringing in other systems to the discussion, I always have to bring up Legend from Rule of Cool. Their weapon system was one of my favorite parts of the system, and in my opinion, it was pretty genius. Then again, their "class system" is pretty unorthodox compared to DnD. Then again again, the way weapons are currently laid out in 5e, I think the property system would be pretty easy to apply. In fact, I think some attempts have already been made on the board. Easy_Lee's weapon logic is pretty close.

As far as the current topic's ideas, I like the reason you tried to come up with this system, Lee, but I do think I prefer where you were going with weapon logic a bit better.

[ChubbyRain]

That does sound pretty good. At least, better than what we have now. Mainly because I kinda think weapons are a big part of my character's image, and I don't want to sacrifice a lot of effectiveness for flavor when it would be so easy to avoid it. Weapon tables are one of my biggest pet peeves in RPGs nowadays. While I have some problems with the system you're describing, it would be functional, and probably fit into DnD really well.

If we're bringing in other systems to the discussion, I always have to bring up Legend from Rule of Cool. Their weapon system was one of my favorite parts of the system, and in my opinion, it was pretty genius. Then again, their "class system" is pretty unorthodox compared to DnD. Then again again, the way weapons are currently laid out in 5e, I think the property system would be pretty easy to apply. In fact, I think some attempts have already been made on the board. Easy_Lee's weapon logic is pretty close.

As far as the current topic's ideas, I like the reason you tried to come up with this system, Lee, but I do think I prefer where you were going with weapon logic a bit better.

When I saw the weapon system in the basic PDF I was like "sure OK, simple basic rules". When I saw the weapon table in the phb I laughed so fricken hard. I've seen more thought and quality put into bad homebrew ideas than what is in the phb.

It really shows where their thoughts are on non-casting classes and ideas and how much effort went into it.

But if I want my fluff to be that I have a giant's Axe, I shouldn't have to have a ton of fiddly rules, I have a two handed weapon and I know how to use it. Of course, if I want my weapon to be a sword sword that is a broken glaive end... I shouldn't be punished for making my fantasy character fantasy.

[Magic Myrmidon]

But if I want my fluff to be that I have a giant's Axe, I shouldn't have to have a ton of fiddly rules, I have a two handed weapon and I know how to use it. Of course, if I want my weapon to be a sword sword that is a broken glaive end... I shouldn't be punished for making my fantasy character fantasy.

We are in total agreement here. Cool, character defining weapon ideas are tough to pull off, and DMs seem really committed to that weapon table in my experience. I'm pretty sure the main reason the weapons are the way the are in 5e is because of tradition. Admittedly, with the goal of this edition, that's understandable, but for those of us who have seen cooler ways to do things, it's a shame.

I've also been irritated recently about rules regarding improvised weapons. It's almost never worth it to try and do something cool like rip a punji stick out from an attempted ambush and use it against the enemies who planted it, because the damage for a punji stick is probably like a d4 versus my greatsword's 2d6, and I probably get disadvantage or something. It just discourages creativity and cool ideas.

[ChubbyRain]

We are in total agreement here. Cool, character defining weapon ideas are tough to pull off, and DMs seem really committed to that weapon table in my experience. I'm pretty sure the main reason the weapons are the way the are in 5e is because of tradition. Admittedly, with the goal of this edition, that's understandable, but for those of us who have seen cooler ways to do things, it's a shame.

I've also been irritated recently about rules regarding improvised weapons. It's almost never worth it to try and do something cool like rip a punji stick out from an attempted ambush and use it against the enemies who planted it, because the damage for a punji stick is probably like a d4 versus my greatsword's 2d6, and I probably get disadvantage or something. It just discourages creativity and cool ideas.

Yeah it really kills the "I'm deadly with any weapon" vibe people try to portray when the chair they hit someone with is doing d4/d6 damage.

A rogue with a toothpick should be as scary as a rogue with a short sword. Why? Because she is just that good. Thankfully the Rogue at least has a mechanic that makes it work regardless of the weapon itself for the most park (sneak attack).

Is it bullseye that can kill anyone with anything grown? Like he could hock a loogie and kill someone by chocking them to death? Now that is a fantasy Rogue right there.

[Easy_Lee]

I am a little surprised by this. Personally I would much rather my character was shaped by my choices on how to develop it than what my DM decides I should use.

Simplicity and depth of choice are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One can make a few simple, but wide-ranging and deep, mechanics go a long way. For example, save DCs are much simpler this generation, all going off of 8+casting mod+prof. This is simple and easy, but does not prevent the system from having lots of spell options to choose from.

In another thread, Person_man described a theoretical system with a short rulebook, but many options for spells and abilities to choose from. I would prefer such a system, I think. The fact that the PHB takes multiple reads to fully understand, and that we collectively still have questions about how everything works close to a year later, shows that there are some undesirable consequences of a rules-and-rulings-heavy system like 5e.

[Person_Man]

I am a little surprised by this. Personally I would much rather my character was shaped by my choices on how to develop it than what my DM decides I should use.

There was definitely a long period of time where I felt as you do. But as a DM who really likes 5E, convincing people to convert from previous editions or teaching new people has been really difficult for me.

First, you either need to read 100-300+ pages of rules to understand how the system works and what your options are, or you need an "older cousin (http://angrydm.com/2014/09/dear-wotc-why-do-you-suck-at-selling-games/)" to choose a character for you and mentor you through a game (which is how most people end up getting into D&D according to the game designers).

Then, assuming that you want to make your own character at some point, you have to go through a 8+ step process: Decide on your general character concept and fluff, class, subclass, race, ability scores, background, skills, equipment, and probably spells and/or class ability specific decisions (Wildshape forms, Battlemaster maneuvers), maybe Feats, and (rarely) magic items. This process can literally take hours, and I know people who spend days or weeks.

Then you actually have to play the game, where 90% of the player's actions will be determined by the capabilities explicitly given to them by their class/subclass/spells/skills/etc, rather then what they as a person would reasonably do if they were in that given situation. So you must actually understand and reference your abilities, and there are a lot of moving parts to understand. This slows down the game, and makes it more focused on the rules (my X ability allows me to do X) instead of player choice (I try to do X - what happens?)

So after a long romance with crunch heavy 3.X/PF, I now long for a simpler, more old school approach to the game. 5E definitely moves in that direction. I just wish it had moved further.



Simplicity and depth of choice are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

This states my opinion perfectly.

[MrStabby]

Simplicity and depth of choice are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I also agree with this. I don't have problem with this but I do have a problem with who makes that choice. Both as a DM and as a Player I believe that a player should be in charge of their character development and it is down to the DM to give the player the facility to express their character. When the character is not choosing their abilities but instead their significant boosts in capability come from what the DM deigns to give them it kind of feels much more like the DM is playing with him/herself.

I think that 5th does an excellent job of giving both simplicity and depth of choice, at least with an experienced and confident DM. The focus away from the detail of the rules, the simplicity of the system that makes homebrew easy, the ability to refluff existing abilities and building the expectation that the DM will shape things all contributes to a great and flexible game.

On a different note I do see the point about martial vs caster with regards to weapons. The ratio of pages spent on spells to pages spent of weapon tables/rules is pretty one-sided. I like casters, think they are characterful and good for the game but giving options to martial characters, especially to explore new mechanics deserves a bit more space. I like the options in the weapon table but I would not object if the next splat re-introduced exotic weapons that opened up special effects and new ways of playing martial characters. If done well it would open up options and sophistication for martial characters but as long as the basic weapons are not traps then it lets players add as much complexity to their combat as they wish.

[Pex]

Please explain exactly how and why you consider this to be true.

edit:
Maybe I'm old as hell, but I remember a time when the stats you started with at level one were the stats you had until the day that you died, unless your DM was nice enough to give you a magic item which raised those stats, because raising your stats via levels was not a thing that existed.
Roll 3d6 six times, arrange them as you see fit, and friggin deal with it until you are forced to roll a new character.
Does this mean that anyone with less than 18/00 Strength couldn't use a weapon efficiently?
Of course it doesn't mean that! .... which means that statement you just made was simply not true.

Just because it cannot possibly mathematically get any better does not mean that it's "difficult to use."
Not by a long shot. That's the munchkin in you talking. You should gag him with a bandana or something.

Just because a game mechanic existed in the past doesn't mean it can't be improved upon to risk being called names.

I agree the minimums are too high. You say you want to divorce ability scores from weapons but by having such high requirements you aren't achieving the job. Strength in particular becomes almost useless. Athletics and carrying capacity are nice but are highly dependent on a particular campaign for how useful. Having a 14 is having an 18 is it doesn't matter what your strength is. High strength becomes a tax just to use the weapon you want but with no other benefit and ironically becomes superfluous if you take the advice to lower the ability score requirements.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree the minimums are too high. You say you want to divorce ability scores from weapons but by having such high requirements you aren't achieving the job. Strength in particular becomes almost useless. Athletics and carrying capacity are nice but are highly dependent on a particular campaign for how useful. Having a 14 is having an 18 is it doesn't matter what your strength is. High strength becomes a tax just to use the weapon you want but with no other benefit and ironically becomes superfluous if you take the advice to lower the ability score requirements.

That's fair. Perhaps this would be best served as a simple fighter buff, to test the system.

Fighter 6: in addition to the ASI, you may choose to use your proficiency bonus in place of you attribute modifier for the attack and damage rolls of a weapon attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

Proficiency bonus: Instead of adding your proficiency bonus to attack rolls, add double that number. Also add this number to your damage rolls.

First thought: This upvalues the Fighter because of the 4 attacks and downvalues the Beastmaster (because one of its things is giving proficiency bonus in added damage to the Pet). I assume everyone else remains relatively static. Probably upvalues the Monk too given the extra attacks.

So, something to bear in mind, you're kind of proposing giving away the BM Hunter's class feature to everyone. Not that that might not be fun for modeling some super-powerful heroes.

[jkat718]

you're kind of proposing giving away the BM Hunter's class feature to everyone. Not that that might not be fun for modeling some super-powerful heroes.

I never thought I'd hear anyone say that giving people features from the BM Ranger would make everyone superheroes. :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

I never thought I'd hear anyone say that giving people features from the BM Ranger would make everyone superheroes. :smalltongue:

It's +24 damage for a Fighter, that's not insignificant.

[Easy_Lee]

It's +24 damage for a Fighter, that's not insignificant.

The idea was proficiency instead of attribute mod, so it's one damage difference per hit assuming level 20 and max strength.

[Vogonjeltz]

The idea was proficiency instead of attribute mod, so it's one damage difference per hit assuming level 20 and max strength.

Ah I see. So BMs would give their ability mod to the pet or what?

[Easy_Lee]

Ah I see. So BMs would give their ability mod to the pet or what?

Err, I think they already apply it to a lot of beast things.

[Vogonjeltz]

Err, I think they already apply it to a lot of beast things.

I mean, would the NPCs also add their proficiency to attack in place of ability score? Or would this just be a PC thing? And if they do swap, how would the BM companion feature get impacted?

[Morty]

An interesting idea. I've long considered it a good idea to divorce attributes from basic numbers such as attacks, defences and common utilities. Making them prerequisites is a good way of doing so - my preference has shifted towards removing attributes altogether, but that's good too.

That said, the prerequisites are indeed probably too high. It would be simpler if there were more things that could have physical ability requirements, but 5e provides very little in those terms.