Minimum Strength requirement for a weapon

[Shinn]

Hi everyone,
As I was reading a 3rd party book about Barbarians, I found something rather different from the classic books about weapons.
It showed some powerful weapons, meant for a Barbarian, but also requiring a minimum Strength to use it. Here are the stats :

- Great Bow, 300 gp, 1d10 Piercing, 20 lb, Str 19 min.
- Greatclub, 20 gp, 2d6 Bludgeoning, 40 lb, Str 17 min.
- Elephant Axe, 50 gp, 4d4 Slashing, 40 lb, Str 20 min.
- Great Mallet, 25 gp, 3d4 Bludgeoning, 50 lb, Str 18 min.
All these weapons were x3 Critical.

Even if I like the idea of a Ulysse-like bow ("Only the mightiest could string the bow from my beloved !"), these are rather unbalanced (especially about the weight). But moreover, I like the idea of a Strength requirement : the Strength-based Fighters/Barbarians would be more than "the guy who could lift this" or "the dude who carry our equipment".

What would be the advantages you would give to a Strength-restricted weapon ? And how much, by a 1-by-1 Strength basis ?

PS : I wasn't sure for posting that in Homebrew topic or here. Sorry if I did a mistake.

[Honest Tiefling]

Main problem I see is spellcasters buffing a reasonable strength (I assume Gish or War Priest type concepts) to snag these weapons as well.

Neither fighters nor barbarians are slouches in the damage department, so maybe these weapons do more then increase damage? Like the mallet whacks targets around, the great bow can ignore some damage reduction, etc.

There is also the concern of when these weapons are expected to come online, and what to do with games with higher strength values (say, from being a minotaur).

[Shinn]

Nope. Officially, none of these weapons are doing anything else. Except maybe the Greatbow, which can support greater Strength modifier, such as a longbow.

And this supplement is kinda dated (2006 I guess), so I don't think it will come online.

[Thurbane]

The Ulysses requirement is more-or-less addressed in the core rules with Strength adjusted bows.

The above sounds like some weird 3rd party method of weapons being exotic-without-needing-a-feat.

[Shinn]

In fact, it's considered as an Exotic weapon, unless you have enough Strength to wield it at a 2-handed Martial Weapon.
But I know that those weapons are of questionable balance, it was just the only thing I had for the example for introducing the Strength requirement.
Now I have something else (from the same editor), maybe a little bit more balanced : it's like a greatsword, but heavier.

- Zweihander, 200 gp, 2d8 Slashing, 30 lb, Str 18 min.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There's already a 2d8 greatsword, called 'fullblade', that's available with just EWP. The 4d4 slashing axe is right between 2d8 and 2d10, so roughly equivalent to the fullblade. The 3d4 weapon is between 2d6 and 2d8, so again, right up there with base exotic weapons. The extra 20-40 pounds weight and the strength requirement are pointless additions, and they strain suspension of disbelief in a most annoying fashion. Weapons just don't weigh fifty pounds, or if they do, they should be used by stone-heaving giants.

In D&D 3.5, you add your strength bonus to damage rolls, and Power Attack requires 13 strength. That's all you need as far as minimum strength 'requirements' are concerned. Weapons are typically not that heavy, and anyone can lift them, but wielding them is a different matter. It's typically not worth using a big weapon-based fighting style, if you don't have the strength to support that style. That doesn't mean you should be mechanically banned from trying.


P.S. There's a 1d10/x3 greatbow in Complete Warrior, and a 2d8/18-20/x2 great crossbow in Races of Stone. That crossbow should be loaded magically, though.

[Big Fau]

How are these items problematic in any way? Outside of base weapon damage, they're barely worth using over the likes of a Spiked Chain or a Greatsword.

[Fizban]

Anyone can tell on first glance that 3.5 has a pretty strict set of rules about how to stat weapons, even if they're not explicitly stated and people like to argue over the finer points. Meanwhile, plenty of 3rd party books like to just plain ignore that and make weapons that are flat out more powerful than they're supposed to be, this is just another example.

A minimum strength requirement for a weapon that deals more damage is laughable, gee I wonder what the primary stat for melee damage dealers already is? Meanwhile I'd all but guarantee there was no consideration for minimum dex weapons. If you think standard base weapon damage is too low then by all means, go ahead and make "new" weapons that are more expensive than normal and deal more damage, just don't pretend the strength requirement means anything or that they are in any way respecting the standard weapon tables.

The correct way to use a minimum stat requirement is to further restrict an exotic weapon, see PHB for the main official examples: Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe. Not that these actually need restriction, but that's how they're set up. If you make an exotic weapon that seems just a little too good for people that aren't investing in the appropriate stat, then slap a stat requirement on the proficiency feat. While you're at it, make sure to phrase the weapon abilities so that they only function for people who are proficient, otherwise anyone can use it at -4 (which is a problem if you actually make an exotic weapon worth using).