Finesseable two-handed weapons: make some

[The Shadowdove]

Hey guys,

I can already imagine all of the reasons why people would be against two handed finesse weapons. This thread isn't for people to dispute whether or not they should exist. You can do whatever you want in your world, and I'm sure it's none the worse for lack of them.

I personally find the fact that all two handed weapons are strength based (so far) to be limiting to my players options.

Please come up with some weapons that may be two handed or versatile while being finesse-able!

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

-Dove

[Magic Myrmidon]

I think it's a pretty easy prospect, especially using Easy_Lee's weapon logic.

Elven Courtblade- 50 gold, d10 damage, finesse, heavy, two-handed

Edit: Could easily remove the "heavy" requirement if you want a small character to be able to use it easily.

[ThermalSlapShot]

My remaking of the basic rules of combat is in my signature but here is weapon finesse.

Weapon Finesse
Prerequisite: Dex 13+

Give the following weapons the *finesse* feature (dex to attack and damage): One handed weapons, versatile weapons used in one hand, and two handed weapons (but if the 2 handed weapon damage die is higher than a d8, then it becomes a d8).

[Thisguy_]

Dude. Sword-chucks. (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3o85y3yGJ1qarkg3o1_400.jpg)

[Ralanr]

I don't think a weapon should have both the finesse and heavy property. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind for that to work.

Edit: yes I know 5e doesn't simulate real combat very well. I still think those properties should be desperate.

[Millface]

My remaking of the basic rules of combat is in my signature but here is weapon finesse.

Weapon Finesse
Prerequisite: Dex 13+

Give the following weapons the *finesse* feature (dex to attack and damage): One handed weapons, versatile weapons used in one hand, and two handed weapons (but if the 2 handed weapon damage die is higher than a d8, then it becomes a d8).

This.

You can't have d10/12 and finesse at the same time because game balance. But if you just want the Great weapon stuff for a Dex martial that seems ok, provided the damage stays at d8.

I was surprised that Spears weren't finesse. Oberyn Martell man. No way he's a strength fighter.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I think the katana has been nominated in various samurai threads.

[Naanomi]

Some flexible weapons probably count (chain-staff and so on) though I would watch carefully for sneak attack interactions with any of this

[ThermalSlapShot]

Dude. Sword-chucks. (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3o85y3yGJ1qarkg3o1_400.jpg)

You forgot the "yo"


This.

You can't have d10/12 and finesse at the same time because game balance. But if you just want the Great weapon stuff for a Dex martial that seems ok, provided the damage stays at d8.

I was surprised that Spears weren't finesse. Oberyn Martell man. No way he's a strength fighter.

I really would prefer a 13th Age like class based damage system where the damage with a weapon is based on your class and not on the weapon... Which when it comes down to it is essentially equal to the class's hit die. You could base it on the proficiency system. If you don't have proficiency then you drop down a die.

Fighter d10
Rogue d8
Cleric d8
Wizard d6

And so on... This shows your character is the driving force of your damage, not what is in your hands.

Like... Bullseye can kill you with a paperclip.

This way wizard with a great sword is not as good as a Fighter with a paperclip.

And I know what I need to add to my base rules.

[Flashy]

I really would prefer a 13th Age like class based damage system where the damage with a weapon is based on your class and not on the weapon... Which when it comes down to it is essentially equal to the class's hit die. You could base it on the proficiency system. If you don't have proficiency then you drop down a die.

Fighter d10
Rogue d8
Cleric d8
Wizard d6

I have no idea how it works in 13th Age but it seems to me this just reeeeeally encourages a fighter dip, particularly for rogues.

[Slarg]

My remaking of the basic rules of combat is in my signature but here is weapon finesse.

Weapon Finesse
Prerequisite: Dex 13+

Give the following weapons the *finesse* feature (dex to attack and damage): One handed weapons, versatile weapons used in one hand, and two handed weapons (but if the 2 handed weapon damage die is higher than a d8, then it becomes a d8).

I would say you should need a certain amount of Strength rather than dex, honestly; No matter how nimble you are, you ain't swinging a greatsword all fast like unless you're strong enough to lift the thing comfortably.

[tieren]

I'm picturing a flexible spear where the head really whips around.

definitely shouldn't have the "heavy" property though.

[The Shadowdove]

I have no problem with damage really...

I think finesse should be equal in damage opportunity.

I do agree that heavy should not be fitness able

For example: asianic weapons

Naginata with str requirement 11 that's finesseable and 1d10.

Seems fair to me

Or Bo-staff... Idk

[Joe the Rat]

I don't think a weapon should have both the finesse and heavy property. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind for that to work.

Keep in mind heavy just means "can't be used effectively by Small people." Yes, typically they are big and massive, but one of the heaviest weapons (greatclub, at 10lbs) isn't heavy - just two-handed. And a Longbow certainly isn't weighty - just long.

(Personally, I'm looking for a one-handed weapon that can be easily used in pairs, but is difficult for someone under 4 feet or 100 lb to wield effectively. I want a light, heavy weapon.)

For me, the rub comes with Great Weapon Mastery. The "crushing blow from heavy weapon" feature feels at odds with the "inflicts damage with precision strikes" of finesse.

[GiantOctopodes]

This.

You can't have d10/12 and finesse at the same time because game balance. But if you just want the Great weapon stuff for a Dex martial that seems ok, provided the damage stays at d8.

I was surprised that Spears weren't finesse. Oberyn Martell man. No way he's a strength fighter.

Why not?

Str and Dex both provide different paths to high AC values (Str with full plate, Dex with Light Armor). Both are stats which drive skills (namely Athletics for Str, and Stealth for Dex). Both are saves against spell effects. Why is it important that Strength based characters deal more damage? How is it unbalanced to allow a Dex based character to deal the same damage as a Strength based one?

Also, I definitely agree on Oberyn for sure.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I have no problem with damage really...

I think finesse should be equal in damage opportunity.

I do agree that heavy should not be fitness able

For example: asianic weapons

Naginata with str requirement 11 that's finesseable and 1d10.

Seems fair to me

Or Bo-staff... Idk


The issue is that "heavy" is a relative term. What is heavy for some is not heavy for others.

A 20 Str halflimh should have no problem with a heavy weapon. D&D isn't a simulation game and putting in simulation rules where they aren't needed just makes things messy.

A 20 Dex 14 Str Fighter should easily be able to finesse a heavy weapon. They have the Str required to use it normally (way more than what's really needed) and their dexterity is as high as it can be as a PC (well... Barbarian...).

Heavy weapons can be finessable even without great strength. Jackie Chan using a ladder as a finesse weapon works just fine and ladders are awkward and a bit heavy (Allumium makes them a bit lighter but wooden ladders are heavy ad hell).

Besides, if it isn't broke then don't mess with it. Putting in simulation rules where none is needed is the first step to killing someone's fantasy character.

[Flashy]

I don't think a weapon should have both the finesse and heavy property. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind for that to work.

Among other things it opens the game up to weird great weapon master/sneak attack shenanigans.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Among other things it opens the game up to weird great weapon master/sneak attack shenanigans.

Well since heavy is relative, it definitely makes sense. Also HP damage is the least of your worries in 5e. Spells/Cantrips makes enemies cry more so than HP damage.

HP damage is so basic.

Want to stop HP damage from PCs?

Mobility
Advantage/Disadvantage system
Resistances/immunities
Increase the number of enemies.
Healing

Or you know, if you as a DM don't want GWM + Sneak Attack to work just say it doesn't work. Then we would have less fiddly rules and you as a DM can keep your game the way you like it.

If a player loves killing things then you should look I to minions. 4e Minions make power gaming for damage less likely to happen since you get the "I'm killing all the monsters mwuahahaha" without the need for optimizing.

[djreynolds]

Have a minimum strength to wield a heavy weapon, and minimum dex to employ a finesse weapon. Say a minimum of 13 in each, now you can finesse a great sword if you have a high dex score, or muscle a rapier if you have a high strength score.

[D.U.P.A.]

Why not?

Str and Dex both provide different paths to high AC values (Str with full plate, Dex with Light Armor). Both are stats which drive skills (namely Athletics for Str, and Stealth for Dex). Both are saves against spell effects. Why is it important that Strength based characters deal more damage? How is it unbalanced to allow a Dex based character to deal the same damage as a Strength based one?

Also, I definitely agree on Oberyn for sure.

1. Full plate is harder to get than bump Dex
2. Str does give nothing if you are caught with your pants down (ex. sleeping)
3. Heavy armor gives stealth disadvantage
4. Dex governs initiative and more skills
5. Dex saves are way more common than Str skills

[The Shadowdove]

The issue is that "heavy" is a relative term. What is heavy for some is not heavy for others.

A 20 Str halflimh should have no problem with a heavy weapon. D&D isn't a simulation game and putting in simulation rules where they aren't needed just makes things messy.

A 20 Dex 14 Str Fighter should easily be able to finesse a heavy weapon. They have the Str required to use it normally (way more than what's really needed) and their dexterity is as high as it can be as a PC (well... Barbarian...).

Heavy weapons can be finessable even without great strength. Jackie Chan using a ladder as a finesse weapon works just fine and ladders are awkward and a bit heavy (Allumium makes them a bit lighter but wooden ladders are heavy ad hell).

Besides, if it isn't broke then don't mess with it. Putting in simulation rules where none is needed is the first step to killing someone's fantasy character.

This makes a lot of sense


How would you rule it, without having to alter too much/in a way less rule savvy players could understand it?

[djreynolds]

This makes a lot of sense


How would you rule it, without having to alter too much/in a way less rule savvy players could understand it?

I personally cannot abide a combat character dumping dex or strength. I feel you need both. If character has a 13 strength and an 18 dexterity, I would have no problem with that guy finessing a great sword, it seems a fair trade off. You can heft the weight of the sword and employee it.

[ThermalSlapShot]

This makes a lot of sense


How would you rule it, without having to alter too much/in a way less rule savvy players could understand it?

"Heavy Weapons

If you have a Strength Score of 15 or higher you may ignore the heavy property if it is advantageous to do so."

If you wanted a drawback you could say that while you are finessing a weapon you can't gain the benefit of the heavy property. No GWM sneak attacks but you can sneak attack with a glaive.


I personally cannot abide a combat character dumping dex or strength. I feel you need both. If character has a 13 strength and an 18 dexterity, I would have no problem with that guy finessing a great sword, it seems a fair trade off. You can heft the weight of the sword and employee it.

Make them one ability score then, physical, and don't push your own ideology of what someone's character should be. :smallsmile:

With the way the system works you sometimes need to dump one or the other. I love my melee centric cleric with 8 Dex.

[GiantOctopodes]

1. Full plate is harder to get than bump Dex
2. Str does give nothing if you are caught with your pants down (ex. sleeping)
3. Heavy armor gives stealth disadvantage
4. Dex governs initiative and more skills
5. Dex saves are way more common than Str skills

1) How so? To get an AC of 17 requires only 200 GP and 15 Str. To get an AC of 17 otherwise requires either 750 GP and 14 Dex or 50 GP and 20 Dex. The Str definitely seems like the easier route to me.

2) How so? I don't see any rules at all that penalize you for sleeping in your armor. Perhaps I missed them, but if not, why is the person who has plate armor not sleeping in it?

3) Stealth is the only skill in the game where a +10 untyped bonus is possible (pass without trace), and on a party buff no less, so if you need to sneak around somewhere it's really not the end of the world.

4) & 5) Certainly. You feel that because of this fact, it's important that dex based characters deal less damage?

[Ralanr]

I've made a barbarian bladelock with 10 dex. I had a blast with him...

I should really check up on him.

[Thrudd]

I dont know why everyone thinks a katana or a naginata should be finesse weapons, but a longsword or glaive should not. They are the same things, people, at least at the level of abstraction the game deals with. They are just slightly different blade shapes. Either literally every weapon gets finesse, or none of them should, depending on your interpretation of strength and dexterity, if you're trying to model reality in any way.

At most the distinction, if you insist on having one, would need to be based on the size/weight of the weapon. Small light weapons could be finessable and nothing else. If youre going to make everything use dex, do away with the strength abililty altogether or replace it with something that will actually be used in the game. Or heavily enforce weight and encumbrance limits, and make them realistic, so strength is actually a needed and useful ability to have in the party.

[Once a Fool]

I don't think a weapon should have both the finesse and heavy property.

This. Allowing Great Weapon Master to bump each d10+5, d12+5, or 2d6+5 attack by a further +10 is one thing, but stacking two sneak attacks a round on top of all that is an express ticket to Brokengamesville.


I don't however, think that the following fighting style would be problematic. You could limit it to Fighters or Rangers for thematic reasons, but Dex-Paladins might like it, too.


Fluid Fighting Style

Your movements in combat flow smoothly from one to another and your strikes gain a graceful precision, thereby.

Whenever you hit with a finesse weapon, add 4 to the value of any weapon die roll that displays the maximum possible result for that die. In addition, you may treat any melee weapon that does not have the "heavy" property as if it has the "finesse" property.

Notes on Fluid Fighting Style:
This being a fighting style, I wanted to keep it simple and not too powerful, but merely allowing larger (non-heavy) weapons to be finesse-able only represents a +1 avg. bonus to what is normally available through finesse (plus an additional 1 per crit die), which hardly seems worth a fighting style. And it does absolutely nothing for weapons that are already finesse.

But throwing a flat +something on top seems boring (and steps on Dueling style's toes--or stacks too well with it). Similarly, an AC bonus would potentially stack with a shield, so that wouldn't be good.

In order to reward/compensate a player who sticks with a smaller weapon, I chose a mechanic that rewards them more often than it rewards users of larger weapons.

So, why +4 per maximized die? It can produce a large spike to the maximum damage of a hit, true. But I'll explain why I like this swingy spike in a moment.

First, let's gain some context by looking at some averages. Excluding outside sources of weapon damage dice, for the moment, a non-crit hit with a d4 weapon averages +1 per hit with this ability. A d6 averages +0.66ish. A d8 is +0.5. And a d10 is only +0.4. Each additional weapon damage die will add that number again to the average.

So, for instance, a non-crit from a dagger-wielding fluid fighter with a 20 Dex (1d4+5) would add an average of +1 to the base 7.5 for a total average of 8.5. If it were a crit, it would be 10+2=12. Using a longsword in two hands (1d10+5) adds +0.4 to 10.5, for 10.9. A crit becomes around 16+0.8=16.8

To contrast with GWF, a style that does something similar, a d8 weapon yields an average +0.75, a d10 yields +0.8, a d12 yields +0.83ish, and a 2d6 is around a whopping +1.34 (of course, d12 and 2d6 weapons aren't useable with Fluid Fighting style) per weapon hit (and per additional weapon die--that's about +0.67 per d6).

But what about the spike damage? The bonus damage for Fluid Fighting style is intentionally swingy, but, not only that, it only kicks in when a damage die's roll is already as good as it gets. On most attacks, the bonus may not kick in at all, but when it does, it is intended to be noticeable.

So, each d4 is valued at 1, 2, or 3 for 75% of the time and 8 for 25%. Each d6 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for 83.33ish% of the time and at 10 for 16.66ish%. Each d8 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 for 87.5% of the time and 12 for 12.5%. And each d10 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 for 90% of the time and 14 for 10%. As we can see, the maximum possible damage with a d10 weapon is still only 2 per die higher than a d12 or 2d6 weapon's maximum (and that's only if GWM isn't being used).

Okay, so what happens when you start making rerolls? If you have both this style and GWF (not an insignificant investment), they play very nicely together. And the Savage Attacker feat allows a complete reroll of the damage roll, once a turn.

In the second case, you get a little added utility (which the feat could really use) by doubling the likelihood of rolling a maximum-valued die noticeably (although, remember, only once per turn). But, that's before you roll the first time. If you choose to reroll, you reroll all weapon damage dice, which resets the probabilities to normal. Still, maybe the feat is worth taking, now. Said the dual dagger-wielding fighter/assassin.

As for GWF, the ability to reroll some damage dice while keeping the maxed ones is nice. Each d4 will have a 37.5% chance of resulting in a maximum value, instead of the normal 1 in 4 (25%). Each d6 will have around a 22.22% chance, instead of 1 in 6 (roughly 16.67%). Each d8 will have a roughly 15.63% chance, instead of 1 in 8 (12.5%). And each d10 will have a 12% chance, instead of 1 in 10 (10%).

Naturally, any adjustment to probability skews the average damage of a given die. But, for instance, going from a d4's 25% to 37.5% only changes the average bonus per die from +1 to about +1

I can live with that.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Another weapon that is far more about finesse (DEX) than STR is the underappreciated pike. Getting that tip at the right place at the right time is almost all DEX especially when the butt is planted in the ground, under your back foot, etc. vs. a charging opponent. It's also listed as heavy, which is IMHO inane, and should have it's own special rules.

What is our goal in making 2 handed weapons finesse? To break the game as the example above shows? I'm opposed and say leave it to RAW. If our intent is only get to use DEX instead of STR for the to hit and damage bonuses in regular non-special tasks, then I'm for it.

From a historical view, it seems that a lot of the DEX based weapons were history-changing weapons. The pike qualifies here, too. The others (IMHO) in no order are the rapier, shortsword, scimitar, longbow, javelin, longbow, and heavy crossbow.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I dont know why everyone thinks a katana or a naginata should be finesse weapons, but a longsword or glaive should not. They are the same things, people, at least at the level of abstraction the game deals with. They are just slightly different blade shapes. Either literally every weapon gets finesse, or none of them should, depending on your interpretation of strength and dexterity, if you're trying to model reality in any way.

At most the distinction, if you insist on having one, would need to be based on the size/weight of the weapon. Small light weapons could be finessable and nothing else. If youre going to make everything use dex, do away with the strength abililty altogether or replace it with something that will actually be used in the game. Or heavily enforce weight and encumbrance limits, and make them realistic, so strength is actually a needed and useful ability to have in the party.

Good points. I disagree on the glaive. I think people want the katana and naginata as finesse because of the perception that they cut cleanly and easily, and imagine a longsword as brutish in comparison. It's a difference in technique to deal the damage that seems to fuel DEX or STR arguments, and this gets too detailed for the level of abstraction the game deals with, if I may borrow your words.

[The Shadowdove]

Both of my dm's like the fluid fighting style.

It also excludes heavy, which is fine.

It makes a solid feat/build alternative to str based heavy weapon fighter and GWM feat without granting a static damage boost that overshadows it.


Whats the damage comparison vs a 'fluid fighting' longsword wielder vs a Great weapon master maul vs a str based sentinel polearm gwm

all with 20 to their max stat?

[Hawkstar]

I, too, wish Spears, Glaives (Naginata or Guan Dao, anyone?), and Pikes were finessable.

[djreynolds]

"Heavy Weapons

If you have a Strength Score of 15 or higher you may ignore the heavy property if it is advantageous to do so."

If you wanted a drawback you could say that while you are finessing a weapon you can't gain the benefit of the heavy property. No GWM sneak attacks but you can sneak attack with a glaive.



Make them one ability score then, physical, and don't push your own ideology of what someone's character should be. :smallsmile:

With the way the system works you sometimes need to dump one or the other. I love my melee centric cleric with 8 Dex.

First off I apologize to Mr slap shot, I hope I didn't come off a pushing an ideology and I'm sorry if I did.

That said, I don't mind dumping stats. My wizard has an 8 strength because of the buy in system. A cleric with an 8 dexterity is fine.

I just feel with dexterity bonus now on damage bonus it allows dumping strength. Where as a fighter with an 8 dexterity really pays for it with bow, maybe not a javelin though. A dex based fighter can now forgo strength totally, especially with acrobatics as a skill to avoid being knocked prone, and is still highly viable.

I just think if minimums stat requirements were included with weapons, then one could finesse a great sword no questions asked.

[Kane0]

Spears, staves, double weapons (two bladed swords, dire axes/flails/maces, gnomish hooked hammers, etc), Elven/Dervish blades, Chains...
Perhaps Falchions too.

[Thrudd]

This. Allowing Great Weapon Master to bump each d10+5, d12+5, or 2d6+5 attack by a further +10 is one thing, but stacking two sneak attacks a round on top of all that is an express ticket to Brokengamesville.


I don't however, think that the following fighting style would be problematic. You could limit it to Fighters or Rangers for thematic reasons, but Dex-Paladins might like it, too.



Notes on Fluid Fighting Style:
This being a fighting style, I wanted to keep it simple and not too powerful, but merely allowing larger (non-heavy) weapons to be finesse-able only represents a +1 avg. bonus to what is normally available through finesse (plus an additional 1 per crit die), which hardly seems worth a fighting style. And it does absolutely nothing for weapons that are already finesse.

But throwing a flat +something on top seems boring (and steps on Dueling style's toes--or stacks too well with it). Similarly, an AC bonus would potentially stack with a shield, so that wouldn't be good.

In order to reward/compensate a player who sticks with a smaller weapon, I chose a mechanic that rewards them more often than it rewards users of larger weapons.

So, why +4 per maximized die? It can produce a large spike to the maximum damage of a hit, true. But I'll explain why I like this swingy spike in a moment.

First, let's gain some context by looking at some averages. Excluding outside sources of weapon damage dice, for the moment, a non-crit hit with a d4 weapon averages +1 per hit with this ability. A d6 averages +0.66ish. A d8 is +0.5. And a d10 is only +0.33ish. Each additional weapon damage die will add that number again to the average.

So, for instance, a non-crit from a dagger-wielding fluid fighter with a 20 Dex (1d4+5) would add an average of +1 to the base 7.5 for a total average of 8.5. If it were a crit, it would be 10+2=12. Using a longsword in two hands (1d10+5) adds about +0.33 to 10.5, for 10.88ish. A crit becomes around 16+0.66=16.66.

To contrast with GWF, a style that does something similar, a d8 weapon yields an average +0.43ish, a d10 or d12 yields +0.45ish, and a 2d6 is a whopping +0.8 (of course, d12 and 2d6 weapons aren't useable with Fluid Fighting style) per weapon hit (and per additional weapon die--that's +0.4 per d6).

But what about the spike damage? The bonus damage for Fluid Fighting style is intentionally swingy, but, not only that, it only kicks in when a damage die's roll is already as good as it gets. On most attacks, the bonus may not kick in at all, but when it does, it is intended to be noticeable.

So, each d4 is valued at 1, 2, or 3 for 75% of the time and 8 for 25%. Each d6 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for 83.33ish% of the time and at 10 for 16.66ish%. Each d8 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 for 87.5% of the time and 12 for 12.5%. And each d10 is valued 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 for 90% of the time and 14 for 10%. As we can see, the maximum possible damage with a d10 weapon is still only 2 per die higher than a d12 or 2d6 weapon's maximum (and that's only if GWM isn't being used).

Okay, so what happens when you start making rerolls? If you have both this style and GWF (not an insignificant investment), they play very nicely together. And the Savage Attacker feat allows a complete reroll of the damage roll, once a turn.

In the second case, you get a little added utility (which the feat could really use) by increasing the likelihood of rolling a maximum-valued die noticeably (although, remember, only once per turn). The likelihood for each d4 to result in the maximum value becomes 43.75%. Each d6 becomes roughly 30.5% likely. Each d8 becomes roughly 23.44% likely. And each d10 becomes 19% likely to yield a maximum result. Maybe the feat is worth taking, now. Said the dual dagger-wielding fighter/assassin.

As for GWF, the ability to reroll some damage dice while keeping the maxed ones is nice, but the probabilities aren't really that impressive. Each d4 will have a 1 in 3 (roughly 33.33%) chance of resulting in a maximum value, instead of the normal 1 in 4 (remember, with GWF, if a 1 or 2 results from a reroll, it stands--thus, out of six possible results for a d4, two of them are 4). Each d6 will have a 1 in 5 (20%) chance, instead of 1 in 6. Each d8 will have a 1 in 7 (roughly 14.29%) chance, instead of 1 in 8. And each d10 will have a 1 in 9 (only slightly better than 11.11%), instead of 1 in 10.

Naturally, any adjustment to probability skews the average damage of a given die. But, for instance, going from a d4's 25% to 33.33% only changes the average bonus per die from +1 to about +1.33.

I can live with that.

Pro tip: all fighting styles are fluid, ideally. Your degree of fluidity is an indicator of your skill in fighting.

[Gritmonger]

Hey guys,

I can already imagine all of the reasons why people would be against two handed finesse weapons. This thread isn't for people to dispute whether or not they should exist. You can do whatever you want in your world, and I'm sure it's none the worse for lack of them.

I personally find the fact that all two handed weapons are strength based (so far) to be limiting to my players options.

Please come up with some weapons that may be two handed or versatile while being finesse-able!

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

-Dove

Net. Use two hands, makes it a way to grab or drag or grapple an opponent at range (reach 10' grapple, finesse) You don't let go when the grapple starts, and you can move the opponent at range (pull only, no push) like you would if maintaining a normal grapple at close range, but all grapple tests are made against the net (DC 10) with your attack and proficiency bonus on top, since you don't let go.

A success means you might get yanked off your feet, however. Really a flexible, light mancatcher.

Three-part-stick. Counts as a polearm. Quarterstaff damage. Two hands only. Finesse. Reach.

Lasso. Ranged (30' max) Grapple, two handed, finesse.

Staff-sling. Just kidding!

[ThermalSlapShot]

First off I apologize to Mr slap shot, I hope I didn't come off a pushing an ideology and I'm sorry if I did.

That said, I don't mind dumping stats. My wizard has an 8 strength because of the buy in system. A cleric with an 8 dexterity is fine.

I just feel with dexterity bonus now on damage bonus it allows dumping strength. Where as a fighter with an 8 dexterity really pays for it with bow, maybe not a javelin though. A dex based fighter can now forgo strength totally, especially with acrobatics as a skill to avoid being knocked prone, and is still highly viable.

I just think if minimums stat requirements were included with weapons, then one could finesse a great sword no questions asked.

I added the smiley to try and show that I wasn't offended, just there are so many people who say "I don't like X no one else should play X". I was trying to cow off more as friendly advice than raging neckbeard haha.

The issue is that the system itself pushes a martial to dump, or partially dump, either Str or Dex. They need Con and some Wis. An if they want to be good where a majority of skills are then Cha and Int need some points too. So for a primary stat you get the choice between Str and Dex and you don't always have enough points to bring them both up.

The thing is, dumping a score just means you are slightly below average unlike in 3e where you could start with a 3 in a score.

I would like to see a system where, much like 3e skill system, if you raise certain scores then other ones are automatically raised via bonus.

Like if I boost Dex from 14 to 15 and Wisdom from 12 to 13 then I may boost Str by one point (maximum of starting Dex score -2) and Int by one point (maximum of starting Wis score -2).

This would show how the scores are all tied together. But it may be a bit complicated.

[Thrudd]

Good points. I disagree on the glaive. I think people want the katana and naginata as finesse because of the perception that they cut cleanly and easily, and imagine a longsword as brutish in comparison. It's a difference in technique to deal the damage that seems to fuel DEX or STR arguments, and this gets too detailed for the level of abstraction the game deals with, if I may borrow your words.

Yes, a perception misinformed by lack of knowledge of weapons and fighting. Every weapon of any continent requires strength and finesse and coordination and fluidity. The better the fighter, the more fluid they appear, regardless of weapon or country of origin. Average European blades were every bit as sharp and strong and flexible as average Japanese blades, maybe moreso depending on the period. There is absolutely nothing special or different in a big picture sense about Asian or Japanese weapons or the methods for wielding them compared to European and Middle Eastern weapons and fighting. There is no realistic rationalle for differentiating "finesse" weapons from "strength" weapons. It is just confusing the meaning of the already highly abstract ability scores.

[Once a Fool]

Both of my dm's like the fluid fighting style.

It also excludes heavy, which is fine.

It makes a solid feat/build alternative to str based heavy weapon fighter and GWM feat without granting a static damage boost that overshadows it.

Hey, thanks!



Whats the damage comparison vs a 'fluid fighting' longsword wielder vs a Great weapon master maul vs a str based sentinel polearm gwm

all with 20 to their max stat?

This is going to get a little mathy.

Thus far, I've only been comparing hit damage, instead of factoring in miss chance, because if all attacks have the same chance to hit, their multiplier for hit probability will all be the same, anyway. Great Weapon Master changes that. For sanity's sake, we'll assume ACs that aren't extreme in the following calculations.

For GWM to be efficient, the expected damage output for an attack with it must be better than the expected output without. For that to be the case, assuming 20 Str, GWF, and a 2d6 weapon, GWM must hit at least 60% as often as without. For a 2d6 weapon without GWF, or a d10 weapon either way, that's 55%. For a 1d4 weapon (Polearm Master's bonus attack), it only needs to hit 45% as often.

Multiply that number by the percentile chance that a normal attack has of hitting and you've got the minimum acceptable hit percentage for using GWM with that attack. If that number is less than the actual chance of hitting with GWM, GWM is worth using. Otherwise, don't use GWM.

For example, a GWF 2d6 attack that would hit on an 11 or better (50%) hits on a 16 or better with GWM (75%) That's a minimum 30% hit chance to be efficient (60% of 50%), but only an actual 25% chance to hit. Not worth it. But a d4 weapon would have a 25% minimum efficiency chance, which would make GWM worthwhile. For a 2d6 weapon with GWF, you need to be able to at least hit with a d20 roll of 13 or better. For a 2d6 weapon without GWF or a d10 weapon, if you can hit on a roll of 14 or better with GWM, use it. For a d4 weapon, 16 is the target number. So, we will need to compare non-GWM hit chances of 65%, 60%, 50%, and 40%.

Also, because Sentinel is available to all of the examples I will provide, and doesn't actually add any damage directly, I will simply assume that everyone makes an opportunity attack. I will also assume that both GWM users also have GWF. And I'm going to ignore crits, cause it's getting very late. And I'm going to assume 2 attacks with an attack option. Just 'cause.

Fluid Fighter 2-Hand Longsword Wielder:
Avg. per hit=10.9
Avg. per atk at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 7.09 / 6.54 / 5.45 / 4.36
DPR at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 21.27 / 19.62 / 16.35 / 13.08

Fluid Fighting 2-Longsword with Dual Wielder:
Avg. per hit=10
Avg. per bonus action hit=5
Avg. per atk at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=6.5 / 6 / 5 / 4
Avg. per bonus action atk=3.25 / 3 / 2.5 / 2
DPR at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=22.75 / 21 / 17.5 / 14

Great Weapon Fighting Maul with Great Weapon Master (used selectively):
Avg. per hit=13.34
Avg. per hit with GMW=23.34
Avg. per atk at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 8.67 / 8 / 6.67 / 6
Avg. per atk with GMW=9.34 / 8.17 / 5.84 / 4.67
Optimal DPR at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 28.02 / 24.51 / 20.01 / 18
Optimal DPR with bonus action atk=37.36 / 32.68 / 26.68 / 24

Great Weapon Fighting Polearm Master with Great Weapon Master (used selectively):
Avg. per hit=roughly 11.3
Avg. per hit with GMW=21.3
Avg. per hit with bonus action atk=8
Avg. per bonus action hit with GWM=18
Avg. per atk at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 7.35 / 6.78 / 5.65 / 5.09
Avg. per atk with GMW=roughly 8.52 / 7.46 / 5.33 / 4.26
Avg. per bonus atk=5.2 / 4.8 / 4 / 3.6
Avg. per bonus atk with GWM= 7.2 / 6.3 / 4.5 / 3.6
Optimal DPR at 65% / 60% / 50% / 40%=roughly 32.76 / 28.68 / 21.45 / 18.87

Or something like that. Head fuzzy. Need rest.

[Once a Fool]

Pro tip: all fighting styles are fluid, ideally. Your degree of fluidity is an indicator of your skill in fighting.

Yeah, but I couldn't call it Graceful Fighting Style, because I've already used that name. And Finesse Fighting would have worked, but didn't sound quite right.

[PoeticDwarf]

I don't think a weapon should have both the finesse and heavy property. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind for that to work.

Edit: yes I know 5e doesn't simulate real combat very well. I still think those properties should be desperate.

I agree, but he said that he didn't want a discussion about that...

[rollingForInit]

Why not?

Str and Dex both provide different paths to high AC values (Str with full plate, Dex with Light Armor). Both are stats which drive skills (namely Athletics for Str, and Stealth for Dex). Both are saves against spell effects. Why is it important that Strength based characters deal more damage? How is it unbalanced to allow a Dex based character to deal the same damage as a Strength based one?

Also, I definitely agree on Oberyn for sure.

Aside from what's been mentioned, there are other abilities to consider, such as the Rogue's sneak attack ability. A rogue with a 2d6 finesse greatsword will deal quite a bit more damage than a rogue wielding a 1d8 rapier. Rogues are already encouraged to invest heavily Dexterity, what with all the skills they'll get from it, and they get the AC and initiative to boost. And it'd open up a whole new synergy if they could effectively use stuff like Polearm Mastery and the greatweapon figthing fight.


Yes, a perception misinformed by lack of knowledge of weapons and fighting. Every weapon of any continent requires strength and finesse and coordination and fluidity. The better the fighter, the more fluid they appear, regardless of weapon or country of origin. Average European blades were every bit as sharp and strong and flexible as average Japanese blades, maybe moreso depending on the period. There is absolutely nothing special or different in a big picture sense about Asian or Japanese weapons or the methods for wielding them compared to European and Middle Eastern weapons and fighting. There is no realistic rationalle for differentiating "finesse" weapons from "strength" weapons. It is just confusing the meaning of the already highly abstract ability scores.

Yeah. People tend to have very arbitrary opinions on where they draw the line between what they feel is super unrealistic and what works. Would've been quite a bit easier if all melee weapons were just based on Strength, and Dex was used for ranged weapons (although a longbow requires quite some strength, of course ...). Of course, they'd have to seriously redesign the ability score system and some classes, and the legacy would be in outrage.


In response to OP: Under the current system, I'd want a 1d8 finesse spear. I also like the idea of having someone with finesse 1d8 khopesh.

[GiantOctopodes]

Aside from what's been mentioned, there are other abilities to consider, such as the Rogue's sneak attack ability. A rogue with a 2d6 finesse greatsword will deal quite a bit more damage than a rogue wielding a 1d8 rapier. Rogues are already encouraged to invest heavily Dexterity, what with all the skills they'll get from it, and they get the AC and initiative to boost. And it'd open up a whole new synergy if they could effectively use stuff like Polearm Mastery and the greatweapon figthing fight.


It sure would, and they sure would! 2.5 damage more per attack, specifically, and since they have 1 attack, 2.5 more damage per round. Going with a Polearm and using Polearm mastery instead of two weapon fighting would get an additional 1 damage on the main attack, and potentially 5 additional damage on the bonus attack, for 6 more damage per round. However, Rogues currently deal the lowest damage of any martial class, and that's even assuming they get their sneak attack every round, which is not guaranteed. Also due to their high damage per hit (due to sneak attack) it is Never worth it for them to use Great Weapon Master (it will virtually always lower their average damage per round to do so). Their AC maxes at 17, the lowest of any class in the game (Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards can all get Mage Armor or equivalent, capping at 18 AC, Clerics, Druids, and Rangers get medium armor and shields, capping at 19 AC, Monks cap at 20 AC, Fighters at 21, and Barbarians at 22). I really don't see the balance issue.

Oh, and in terms of a two handed finesse weapon- my personal vote would have to go to that most outrageous of weapons, the versatile finesse weapon that is either two handed or has reach, the spiked chain. Or, without opening that can of worms, a spear makes a fine finesse weapon

[D.U.P.A.]

1) How so? To get an AC of 17 requires only 200 GP and 15 Str. To get an AC of 17 otherwise requires either 750 GP and 14 Dex or 50 GP and 20 Dex. The Str definitely seems like the easier route to me.

2) How so? I don't see any rules at all that penalize you for sleeping in your armor. Perhaps I missed them, but if not, why is the person who has plate armor not sleeping in it?

3) Stealth is the only skill in the game where a +10 untyped bonus is possible (pass without trace), and on a party buff no less, so if you need to sneak around somewhere it's really not the end of the world.

4) & 5) Certainly. You feel that because of this fact, it's important that dex based characters deal less damage?

1. Dunno, money thingies are too DM dependent. While level features are easier to get. Also if you talk about medium armor, you still have medium armor master feat.

2. Hm true I did not find anything about in PHB. But many DMs are used to old rules and twisted perception of reality.

3. It still can be life saver somewhere.

4. If they are better on defense, then should be less effective in offense I guess

[Dimcair]

If we are not worried about two-handed finesse weapons I am assuming we disregard the reasons for being worried about them (balance), and we can just go ahead and use our imagination. Lets make us a super-special sword, 1d12 slashing/piercing/blunt.

Yay.

I mean if you do not care about reasons why two handed weapons shouldn't be finesse, why stop at a d8....

[Cybren]

The issue is that "heavy" is a relative term. What is heavy for some is not heavy for others.

A 20 Str halflimh should have no problem with a heavy weapon. D&D isn't a simulation game and putting in simulation rules where they aren't needed just makes things messy.

A 20 Dex 14 Str Fighter should easily be able to finesse a heavy weapon. They have the Str required to use it normally (way more than what's really needed) and their dexterity is as high as it can be as a PC (well... Barbarian...).

Heavy weapons can be finessable even without great strength. Jackie Chan using a ladder as a finesse weapon works just fine and ladders are awkward and a bit heavy (Allumium makes them a bit lighter but wooden ladders are heavy ad hell).

Besides, if it isn't broke then don't mess with it. Putting in simulation rules where none is needed is the first step to killing someone's fantasy character.

D&D isn't a "simulation game" but game mechanics that don't have any resonance to the genre or actually represent something within the world do make it worse. The weapons and armor aren't perfect models of medieval equipment (i will never not be annoyed about plate'mail'), but there's a logical consistency to them.

At any rate, I would buy staffs (or spears or similar shorter hafted weapons) as finesse weapons.

[Ralanr]

When someone says halfling with a greatsword, I picture clouds buster sword.

Then I remember why that isn't feasible.

[HoarsHalberd]

If we are not worried about two-handed finesse weapons I am assuming we disregard the reasons for being worried about them (balance), and we can just go ahead and use our imagination. Lets make us a super-special sword, 1d12 slashing/piercing/blunt.

Yay.

I mean if you do not care about reasons why two handed weapons shouldn't be finesse, why stop at a d8....

The only class interaction I can see that would be especially powerful is GWF and sneak attack. Which at level 19-rogue 1 fighter would add an average of 7.8-ish damage on a normal hit and 15.6-ish damage on a critical. No rogue is going to risk their one chance at 35 damage from sneak attack for a -5 +10. If you hit on a ten normally the average damage would be 0.5(4.5+5+35)+0.05(9+5+70) for an average of 24.7 DPR whereas -5 +10 gives you 0.25(4.5+5+10+35)+0.05(9+5+10+35) for 16.5 DPR.

Now, there is a feat that would be overpowered for rogues with dex to 2 handed weapons. The omnipresent polearm mastery. Quarterstaff for two chances at sneak attack a turn. And then the second most reliable way of getting a reaction in the game to allow two sneak attacks a turn. This would have to be curtailed somehow.

But dex melee fighters are currently underpowered due to a lack of feats. Hand crossbow or heavy crossbow ranged fighters are invariably a better use of rounds after getting crossbow mastery. and Polearm master fighters with/without GWM are straight up better. Only thing dex melee is good for is a scout if you don't have a rogue/bard/ranger before invisibility is an option.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, but I couldn't call it Graceful Fighting Style, because I've already used that name. And Finesse Fighting would have worked, but didn't sound quite right.

The point is, it shouldnt be a specific style. All of those things describe all fighting with any weapon by a skilled warrior. Its like saying your "style" is being good at fighting. Which the game already models by gaining additional proficiency bonus and increasing abilities as you level up.

The level of abstraction in the ability scores and combat rules does not allow differentiating between the minutiae of individual fighting styles in a rational way. Differentiating the differences between weapons and equipment choice is where the line should be drawn; great weapon fighting different than sword and board, offensive focus different than defensive focus is ok. 3e messed this up and started down the path of trying to use specific individual actions in combat when the system actually models the abstract results of a series of exchanges with numerous actions, confusing everyone and making the system inconsistent. 5e is continuing this to some degree.

[rollingForInit]

If people want to see what historical fencing looks like, you can search youtube for "hema" (historical european martial arts). In particular, "hema swordfish" yields results from the (I think) largest tournament in the world for the sport.

Some of those duels are extremely graceful and cool to watch.

[Ralanr]

Dex melee fighters are underpowered?

Is a higher initiative, more common save, and equal damage with melee and ranged weapons not good enough?

[ThermalSlapShot]

D&D isn't a "simulation game" but game mechanics that don't have any resonance to the genre or actually represent something within the world do make it worse. The weapons and armor aren't perfect models of medieval equipment (i will never not be annoyed about plate'mail'), but there's a logical consistency to them.

At any rate, I would buy staffs (or spears or similar shorter hafted weapons) as finesse weapons.

D&D weapons and armors do not use logical consistency. Hell, plate armor is really easy to move around in (in real life) and give your arms a better range of motion than chain shirts. Some armors on the table never even really existed. Weapons have never had any logical consistency.

D&D is a generic/heroic fantasy game, that has rules for laser guns. There is not a single game mechanic that can't fit into 5e D&D. Just because it doesn't fit into your conservative view of a fantasy game doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.

This is the sort of ideology that people use when they try to control other people's PCs. The "I don't see how this work so you shouldn't see how this works" view.

When adding mechanics or new ideas to a fantasy game you only need to think of the following.

Is it balanced? (Heavy fineesse weapons = yes)
Can someone/does someone want to play this type of fantasy character? (Yes)

In order to be a fantasy character all one needs to do is think it up, it doesn't need to be a premade character from literature or movies. How can fantasy grow if we just rehash the same tropes.





When someone says halfling with a greatsword, I picture clouds buster sword.

Then I remember why that isn't feasible.

You say "isn't feasible" for a buster sword in 5e D&D... 3e had the 1 handed bastard sword, casters cast spells, a Barbarian can resist damage based on anger... How does "using a big weapon" not feasible?

How is that the cut off for feasible? I mean, Spells get to do pretty much anything you want a spell to do something but... A Fighter/rogue/Barbarian holding a big weapon just blows your mind?

And how is that fair? This is why martials can't get nice things. Every time anything goes toward fantasy people flip out as it can't possibly ever happen in a generic/heroric fantasy game (recall, we have laser guns).

Don't want your Fighter/halfling whatever using heavy weapons? Ok, yours doesn't have to use them. However my halfling Fighter using a great sword without being punished will bring me fun.

Other people's fun shouldn't be contingent on me having to limit my own fun.


Edited

Fair to the PLAYER not fair to the class.

[Ralanr]

Personally I'm fine with the heavy weapon restrictions. I think it helps give the choice depth.

Then again I'm the guy who would like all spells from 6-9 (but not slots) removed and give maneuvers to every martial class.

The topic that seems to end up with every martial discussion is how realistic this nice thing should be.

Can't be realistic when mages can walk through walls. I think martials being a bit unrealistic is fine, but I'm not one for swinging BFS's that couldn't function normally. I'm a Berserk fan and I still wouldn't want to have someone use the dragonslayer.

Suspension for disbelief is really limited for martials, despite most fantasy stories featuring a guy with a sword.

[Shining Wrath]

Bring back spiked chain. D8 damage, reach, two-handed and finesseable. Add it to the list for Polearm Master; it's easy to make an attack with the other end of the chain.

If you're willing to live with complexity, give enemies the chance to grab the chain when attacked. Dexterity(Acrobatics) check against the attack roll to grab it; then opposed Strength(Athletics) checks to keep a grip on the chain. Since the foe has a grip on the part of the chain where the spikes are, they make their checks with disadvantage unless they have gauntlets or equivalent.

[rollingForInit]

D&D is a generic/heroic fantasy game, that has rules for laser guns. There is not a single game mechanic that can't fit into 5e D&D. Just because it doesn't fit into your conservative view of a fantasy game doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.



I tend to agree with this in general. I certainly don't mind certain "unrealistic" tropes, like too big weapons, and so on. However, D&D seem to the issue of trying to be a bit of both. In some aspects, it strives to have realism, for instance that small creatures cannot properly wield heavy weapons, or that dual-wielding hand crossbows is a big no-no because it's so unrealistic. In others, it doesn't care, such as dual-wielding being just as viable as a single weapon, the above mentioned strength vs dexterity, and so on. It's all awfully arbitrary and inconsistent.

[Joe the Rat]

If you wanted to go all-in on STR=power, DEX=accuracy and speed and reflexes and pretty much anything besides raw power and endurance, then every melee weapon should be Dex-to-hit, Str-for-damage. So back to 3e finesse. Or most other combat systems (typically with "armor reduces damage" rather than "armor prevents hits.")

There has to be a good explanation for why we don't do that (besides "balance"). So let's ask ourselves a couple of questions.

1) How does Strength give a to-hit bonus?

2) How does Dexterity give a damage bonus?


Strength-to-hit has a lot to do with how armor works. Armor doesn't give a "miss" result because you were hard to touch, but rather because it deflects and/or absorbs the force of the blow. You don't feel it, or rather, you don't feel it enough to be a "telling blow". Strength lets you power through that - breaking through the armor, or simply hitting with enough force that the target loses some of its fight (hit points). You can look at this as powering through block/parry attempts as well. So how does it help hit nimble-yet-squishy targets?

Speed.

All that "muscle power" is somehow translated into force applied to the target. Since weapons don't suddenly get heavier or sharper because the user is stronger, hitting harder means swinging harder, which means swinging faster. You defeat the other guy's reflexes by swinging fast enough that he can't get out of the way, or get something else in the way.


But what about Dexterity? Isn't Dexterity the speed stat? Actually, no. "Agility, reflexes, and balance." Dexterity isn't how fast you can move, but how quickly you can change direction. Dexterity represents acceleration. In terms of combat, Dexterity says how quickly you start moving (initiative), but Strength determines maximum speed. Dexterity also includes a fine motor component (presumably under the "agility" heading), which is good for making small, quick changes to aim and position. Very good for hitting things at range, and getting your weapon to strike places that don't have lots of armor. So how do we get extra damage here?

Precision.

Hitting where it hurts. The same feature that lets you get around armor is the same feature that lets you hit weak points that hurt. Where Strength deals its hits by forcing through armor's protection, Dexterity lets you apply all your force directly to the squishy bits. Sounds a lot like Sneak Attack, doesn't it? Yes, yes it does. Which is why Sneak Attack generally requires Dex-to-hit attacks. Rogues hit where it hurts, and try for points that are the most critical, or know how to make it really hurt. And yes, that is why some of us think Sneak Attack ought to work with a Monk's unarmed strikes.

You will also note that almost all of the precision weapons are piercing weapons. A sudden, quick strike in an unprotected area works best when you only need a small, brief opening to dart in. Scimitar is the odd one out here. Honestly, I think it's so Dex-based characters can have a Dex-based slashing weapon. Now if you want a rationale, the best I have is that it's a light enough weapon to accelerate quickly to strike at longer openings. The flip side of that line of thought leads to why there's a size/mass limit on finesse: Weapon inertia. Above a certain length or mass it becomes difficult to make the split-second moves to attack.

Short version: Strength hits with faster strikes, Dex damages with well-aimed (usually thrusting) blows.

[coredump]

This.

You can't have d10/12 and finesse at the same time because game balance. But if you just want the Great weapon stuff for a Dex martial that seems ok, provided the damage stays at d8.

I was surprised that Spears weren't finesse. Oberyn Martell man. No way he's a strength fighter.

But he also wasn't doing a ton of damage, he was hitting him much more than he was hurting him.

I think Finesse would make more sense if it allowed +Dex to hit, but still +Str to damage. Would help with some balance issues also.

[Kurt Kurageous]

dual-wielding hand crossbows is a big no-no because it's so unrealistic.

I'd allow dual wielded hand crossbows, just not reloadable in combat. You can ready/draw two crossbows, fire both, then drop them and to draw your melee weapon(s). I think that meets RAI in that you won't be able to reload.

Or did you mean to make your comment sarcastic (which you should put in blue for clarity sake).

[Ralanr]

But he also wasn't doing a ton of damage, he was hitting him much more than he was hurting him.

I think Finesse would make more sense if it allowed +Dex to hit, but still +Str to damage. Would help with some balance issues also.

My DM did this with my first pathfinder session. I tried to find a way to make my dex do melee damage ASAP afterwards.
Sadly I don't think this would work in 5e considering the few times you can improve your stats. Unless there were no feats, then that might work.
I hear featless games work very well.


I tend to agree with this in general. I certainly don't mind certain "unrealistic" tropes, like too big weapons, and so on. However, D&D seem to the issue of trying to be a bit of both. In some aspects, it strives to have realism, for instance that small creatures cannot properly wield heavy weapons, or that dual-wielding hand crossbows is a big no-no because it's so unrealistic. In others, it doesn't care, such as dual-wielding being just as viable as a single weapon, the above mentioned strength vs dexterity, and so on. It's all awfully arbitrary and inconsistent.

That's the inherent problem within the system right there. There are many games that fill in the niches D&D doesn't. These games know what they want to be, they know how ridiculous or serious they shoot towards.

D&D is broad, and we tend to love it for that. I think 3.5 got splat heavy because it had heavier competition than 2e. Since 5e is similar to 2e (though 2e had some very good concepts that never saw daylight again apparently) there isn't as much customization.

Then we have the lack of official creations. 5e is still new and it's got a hell of a lot of homebrew for things people can't find in the core. Downside is that homebrew is hard to balance and hard to account for as a DM (the latter is why my DM prefers little homebrew in main campaign sessions).
I hoped the elemental evil supplement would provide new class options, but it did so in spells and races. I'm still waiting on a third barbarian subclass. Not that everything wizards make is balanced, but it tends to be the standard.

I think the DMG shouldn't have given laser guns. I don't see those working relatively well in game for balance reasons. They do exist however, which tells me that 5e is already stretching itself a lot.

Edit: No, unearthed arcana doesn't count. It specifies that it is in testing phase.

[Once a Fool]

The point is, it shouldnt be a specific style. All of those things describe all fighting with any weapon by a skilled warrior. Its like saying your "style" is being good at fighting. Which the game already models by gaining additional proficiency bonus and increasing abilities as you level up.

The level of abstraction in the ability scores and combat rules does not allow differentiating between the minutiae of individual fighting styles in a rational way. Differentiating the differences between weapons and equipment choice is where the line should be drawn; great weapon fighting different than sword and board, offensive focus different than defensive focus is ok.

Finesse gives a weapon specific mechanical applications (one of which is the ability to sneak attack). The Fluid Fighting style fills a mechanical niche.

If the fluff bothers you, it can be easily changed without changing the mechanics. Go ahead. Won't bother me a bit, if you do.

If you dislike that the mechanical niche is being filled, well, I guess I'll just have to live with that.


3e messed this up and started down the path of trying to use specific individual actions in combat when the system actually models the abstract results of a series of exchanges with numerous actions, confusing everyone and making the system inconsistent. 5e is continuing this to some degree.

The decision to switch from a one minute round to a six second round and then stick with it for future editions made that inevitable. And, anyway, even before 3e, many people described their actions in specific detail. In particular, individual attack rolls were frequently described as if they represented a single attack, generally in graphic detail.

Doing this as a DM was often touted as the thing "good DMs" did to make combat interesting and immersive. Which is probably why 3e chose to use a six second round, in the first place.

[Thisguy_]

I see two handed finesse weapons as more of a "be careful with it" than a "dang, that's big." My first thoughts when originally encountering and when returning to this subject were "Two X connected by a chain." Daggers, swords. Chain scythe with a blade for each hand and a swingy, whippy, cutty mechanic. Generally thinking d6+situational bonus, or d8 for sword-chucks, yo. Would be a cool weapon class, sure, but two hands otherwise seems to imply heavy, and heavy and finesse should be mutually exclusive.

[Drackolus]

You could go katana/falchion/whatever sword as 2d4. That could be fun.

As a warning though, I'd probably make the weapon specifically state that it can't be used for sneak attack. Great weapon fighting from Fighter/Paladin would be letting you reroll a whole bunch of 1's and 2's on sneak attacks. Taking out the heavy property takes out the -5/+10 threat though. But a GWF d6 averages ~4.167, a ~.67 damage increase. d4's average 3, a .5 increase. When we're talking a 3rd level champion/7th level rogue, that's 2d4 + 4d6, or ~22.67 average per hit, + mod, with a crit on 19-20 for 45.33 + mod. 1 fighter/9 rogue gives 2d4+5d6, a 26.833 average. That's quite a chunk of damage for a rogue, who would normally only deal 22 damage with a rapier at that point.

I suppose it's not a massive increase, but it's worth thinking about. It would be weird for rogues to want to take 1 level of fighter to improve their sneak attacks.

[BoardPep]

Bring back spiked chain. D8 damage, reach, two-handed and finesseable. Add it to the list for Polearm Master; it's easy to make an attack with the other end of the chain.

If you're willing to live with complexity, give enemies the chance to grab the chain when attacked. Dexterity(Acrobatics) check against the attack roll to grab it; then opposed Strength(Athletics) checks to keep a grip on the chain. Since the foe has a grip on the part of the chain where the spikes are, they make their checks with disadvantage unless they have gauntlets or equivalent.

I was going to post the spiked chain, but you beat me to it. :smallsmile:

The only change I would think about is adding the heavy property to it. I recall it being similar in weight in 3.5E to the weapons that are now heavy weapons in 5E. Might need to make it a D6 as well, for balance reasons.

I understand why it would work with Polearm Master, but it's a bit strange since it's not actually a polearm. But I suppose if we're making up weapons, that's not a big deal.

I don't mind the complexity of the enemies being able to grab your weapon, but it does seem strange that they can't do it with other weapons where you over-extend when you miss, like polearms. I wouldn't add this as a mechanic, but definitely think about using it for when somebody rolls a 1 while using it. Assuming you play with critical fumbles for fun of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurt Kurageous]

You could go katana/falchion/whatever sword as 2d4. That could be fun.
Oh heck yeah! Bring back the DnD broadsword damage dice!

[1Forge]

Nearly all heavy weapons would never count realistically. BUUUT you said 2 handed not heavy so you could make a light spear finess, that is really the only thing i can think of, axes swords and maces would never work.

[Knaight]

For example: asianic weapons

Naginata with str requirement 11 that's finesseable and 1d10.

Seems fair to me

Or Bo-staff... Idk

Naginata are characterized by having a fairly large blade on the end - they aren't on the light end. The Japanese yari also was on the longer end of the spear blade range for a lot of time periods. If anything, these should be considered less viable for finesse weapons than most obvious counterparts (and I don't just mean things from Europe here, as I'd include China, Mongolia, Korea, North Africa, India, and the Middle East on that list, with the spear in particular being spread to just about everywhere).

Finesse weapons in general are a bit of a sticky situation though. Dexterity covers reflexes, fast motion, precision, and other things that are going to be useful even if you're using something really heavy. Being stronger will let you be better able to lunge and such due to a faster recovery time, have an advantage in winding, and a whole bunch of other stuff that is still very useful even with lighter equipment. The distinction is arbitrary. With that said, one thing that appears to be being used to some extent is point of balance, with the finessable list mostly having the center of balance further back. Rapiers are on the list despite often being relatively heavy by sheer mass, even small axes aren't on the list despite being plenty fast. Torque appears to be what maps decently onto the choices. Added to that, there's some amount of conflation between finessable and primarily thrusting, which does have some validity to it inasmuch as there's often a higher degree of necessary precision in placing the strike itself over setting it up.

This sets up a few obvious candidates, and cuts a few out. The staff, spear, and two handed sword all fit. Polearms with heavier heads, axes, and maces don't. Again, this is arbitrary, but given the existing framework it makes sense. From a game balance perspective though, it might help to have to choose between the finessable and heavy tags, representing variation within weapons. That's not really a problem, as some of the categories are reasonably broad. Something like "spear" covers a lot of distinct weapons.

[MeeposFire]

I kind of wish that they made the long sword a finesse weapon at least when used two handed. It would give a reason for the versatility property and would give the weapon a unique niche. It would be the most powerful weapon but damage dice on a single attack is not that big of a deal in reality (it is on average 1 damage) but on the flip side it would not allow you to invest in abilities that require that extra hand such as using a shield or a second weapon (which in both cases are probably better ideas).