Our concept is better than your concept

[Anonymouswizard]

Or unnecessary pigeon holing of classes due to designer intent.

So my friends and I are about to start a campaign. I decided to run a Barbarian, because the idea of somebody with a 'combat mode' is something I like even when it's not 'frothing and screaming' rage. Specifically I'm a folk priest of The Daghdha who wields what is essentially a two-handed mace (I wanted a greatclub, but they're horrible) and who can only activate rage when drunk. Thankfully we're starting at level one, so I don't have to deal with what I'm complaining about for another eight levels, but while making my character I got the feeling that some classes are unfairly pushed towards certain choices because of the designer's ideas of what archetypes they should fill, even if the class easily fits several other archetypes.

The big one that annoys me is how at level nine my character is encouraged to leave his refluffed maul behind and switch to a greataxe, or possibly a lance (if you're not fighting enemies in your face). Sure, nothing's saying I have to be completely optimal, but it's annoying that the designers have decided to limit my weapon options to (just barely) two if I want to make the most use of an ability that only continues to grow in power and/or importance as the class gains levels (as if I reckless attack it triggers almost a tenth of the time).

I mean, I understand that in the event I want a reach weapon then the d10 die weapons are good without giving too much of a reduction in ability usefulness, but it annoys me that my character, who has no in-universe reason to use a greataxe, is pushed towards it because the designers decided that Barbarians use greataxes and fighters use mauls.

So yeah, just me having a bit of a rant. I guess it's the same thing as the lack of assumptions about dexterity Paladins or Strength rangers, even though they are viable options for the class. It's the case of what feels like a cool idea for a character starts to run into problems when you go outside the specific things that the designers expected. While the designers shouldn't need to support every potential character option, I'm disappointed that if I want to beat people with a big stick the system encourages me to use the Monk class.

[bid]

The big one that annoys me is how at level nine my character is encouraged to leave his refluffed maul behind and switch to a greataxe, or possibly a lance (if you're not fighting enemies in your face).
Just refluff a mace that does 1d12 damage.

Or just ignore the problem. You're critting once every 10 hits or so, trading 10*(7-6.5) = 5 damage for (10.5-13) = 2.5 damage. Maul is still a better deal until brutal 2.

[Coffee_Dragon]

So basically you're saying, "Weapon lists are stupid, give me a set of abstract weapon trait permutations or make damage a class property and let me handle the rest"? (The OP, that is.)

[Vessyra]

Greataxe does give a slight boost over the maul when it comes to critical hits, but it's very minor. In 5e, with the lack of optimisation, not taking a weapon that synergises with brutal critical won't give much difference. You've already shown that you aren't that interested in optimisation, and even if you are, bid has pointed out the the maul will remain more powerful until level 13.

[KOLE]

I can kind of sympathize with what you’re saying. I feel this way about Dex characters who sword and board being stuck with the rapier. I think rapiers are lame and terrible flavor for a class 90% of the time. (Though I did play a literal musketeer swashbuckler rogue once, and that fit dead on). So I talked to my DM and refluffed it, and was instantly happier with my character using a “Elvish Longsword” that was inherently light and nimble. Problem solved, for me. Another time, my Dex Barb/Rogue used a “Boarding Axe”, a light axe designed to be nimble for close quarters naval combat, especially light to reduce weight for cargo purposes and not-dragging-you-to-davy-jones-locker purposes. Spoiler: it was a refluffed rapier that dealt slashing damage instead of piercing.

This is really common at my table. Longswords become Katanas or Bastard Swords. Short swords become gladiuses and dao, darts become shurikens. We have a homebrew finesse spear, and homebrew great shields.

Heck, my DM even lets us refluff a greatsword into a greataxe if we want the 2d6 vs the d12. None of this really breaks the game. I say, refluff the stats, then you get the best of both worlds!

[nothinglord]

It would be easier to just let Brutal Critical add 2d6 instead of just 1d6.

If they wanted the Greataxe to be the "iconic" weapon for Barbarians, they shouldn't have done it by making Greatsword/Maul get less of a benefit from BC than a twohanded Longsword. They could have easily said "1d12 weapons get their extra dice +1 damage" for BC. Makes up for that +0.5 extra damage 2d6 has over 1d12. Whoopie.

[Lombra]

Why worry about petty damage? Play the character. Pick a greatclub and roll with it. Have fun. Don't limit yourself to numbers.

[Platypusbill]

D&D class design often leans itself towards certain character archetypes, but this is a minor issue. I'm sure many DMs wouldn't mind if your maul were a 1d12 weapon instead of a 2d6 weapon. The mechanical difference between stabby/slashy/smashy weapons is very minor anyway (see https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/103213/what-are-the-most-and-least-resisted-damage-types). E.g. skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, but more enemies are resistant to it than slashing or piercing. The only other difference between a greataxe and maul is cost (30 vs 10 gp) and weight (7 vs 10 lb), which is even less important.

Besides, 2d6 is still superior to 1d12 despite the massive 3d12 crits, as the average damage of 2d6 with normal hits is 7 compared to the 6.5 of 1d12. Crits come up so rarely that the Greataxe doesn't catch up until you get the third extra damage die at level 17.

Let's say you have a hitrate of 65%, which means you hit 13/20 attacks, one of which is a crit. Before the flat Strength and Rage damage bonuses and with the first level of Brutal Critical, this is a total of 29d6 (101.5) with a 2d6 weapon or 15d12 (97.5) with a 1d12 weapon.

[randomodo]

I do sympathize about, for example, the lack of mechanical support for ranged paladins, and the lack of slashing finesse weapons (seriously, watch a sabre fencing match in slow motion and tell me they're not heavily-dependant on Dex).

[Coffee_Dragon]

Why worry about petty damage? Play the character. Pick a greatclub and roll with it. Have fun. Don't limit yourself to numbers.

What. You are banned from the internet, RPGs can no longer be played this way


watch a sabre fencing match in slow motion and tell me they're not heavily-dependant on Dex).

I skipped the watching part, but: They are not heavily dependent on Dex, as defined in D&D.

[EvilAnagram]

I skipped the watching part, but: They are not heavily dependent on Dex, as defined in D&D.

Right, they just don't exist.

[suplee215]

I do not have the math on me but I believe the greatsword/maul is superior overall as the 1/20 chance of a crit does not move the greataxe ahead in battle calculations. Without crits in 20 hits (doing the most basic of math here not taking into account miss chances or anything) 20x7=140, 20x6.5=130. If we assume 1 of those hits is a crit with brutal critical you get 140+7+3.5=150.5 and 130+6.5+6.5=143. At level 13 this is 154 for the 2d6 weapon and 149.5 for the 1d12. At level 17 it is 157.5 and 156. You need to be a half orc barbarian at level 17 for the math to be on your side with the greatsword dealing 161 and the greataxe 162.5 in 20 hits assuming 1 crit. I am unsure how much reckless attacks affects this. Mechanically the greatsword and maul are respectable options when factoring in dps.

EDIT: My math is off for not factoring in the normal crit increases. Edited to be better. Again not factoring in increase crit chance of advantage. Sorry about that.

[randomodo]

Howdy, coffee. What I'm getting at is that reflexes (or at least reaction speed), and precision of blade placement that is required for successful fencing implies to me that slashing finesse weapons are perfectly viable.

I recognize that speed has a lot to do with strength, of course. And, yes, modeling real-world combat/combat sports through the lens of D&D mechanics is inherently fraught with a number of problems.

Regards,

[Eric Diaz]

If that is the kind of game you all want to play, the GM should allow some refluffing...

The difference in damage is negligible anyway, so I'd definitely allow a 1d12 two-handed mace. Why rob the player of the fun of rolling a handful of 1d12s for what, a 3% difference in DPR?

Same for Str monk and Dex paladin, although that might require some additional house-ruling.

EDIT: with that said, I agree with the OP. I also kinda understand why 5e is designed this way - to avoid edge cases or unintended consequences, I reckon. But I personally will allow almost anything reasonable.

[Sahe]

I know what you mean and I ran into this problem to (at least in my opinion with the monk). Wushu uses a lot of weapons and also a lot of dual wielding (Dao, Tiger Hook Sword, Butterfly Sword, Hammers) guess what you can't really do as a monk? At least not as good as you should be able to? That's right, dual wielding.

Another issue is that some weapons are completely missing, like the Guandao (Glaive) or Monk's Spade, which you can't even get as a Kensei, because it's heavy. And of course then there is stuff like the Rope Dart or Meteor Hammer, which I can at least somewhat excuse, because they can't be properly represented by the existing rules.

In general, the way Monk Weapons are set up the only good options are Staff and Spear until your Martial Arts die catches up. Although, I guess an argument could be made for wielding two throwable weapons. But still, going full Yu Shu Lien on Jen Yu in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or One Hundred Eyes vs some poor Mongol soldiers in Marco Polo isn't really possible.

The Monk class is already quite pigeonholed thematically with it's heavy riff on eastern martial arts, but even then you can't even fully explore that.

[Tanarii]

I skipped the watching part, but: They are not heavily dependent on Dex, as defined in D&D.
They are, in that D&D Dex modifies your chance not to get hit due to superior balance and footwork.

But yeah, not the attacking part. Finesse melee weapons should not exist at all in D&D. They're really just a sop to the Rogue.

[Sahe]

They are, in that D&D Dex modifies your chance not to get hit due to superior balance and footwork.

But yeah, not the attacking part. Finesse melee weapons should not exist at all in D&D. They're really just a sop to the Rogue.

I'd say most weapons require more dexterity than strength to wield and do damage with. Weapons are incredible force multipliers and you certainly need some strength to properly wield a weapon. But a properly sharpened sword will cut deep regardless who swings it.

[Tanarii]

I'd say most weapons require more dexterity than strength to wield and do damage with.
Then you haven't read what the 5e ability scores cover.

[Lombra]

What. You are banned from the internet, RPGs can no longer be played this way

You're right. My bad. Let me make up for this.

Let's say you crit once every 10 attacks.

Counting the damage dice rolled over the 10 attacks, for a greataxe we have 9 + 3 (assuming brutal critical 1) = 12d12 damage, which averages to 78 total damage.

With a 2d6 weapon, you roll a total of 18 + 5 = 23d6, which averages to 80.5, more than the greataxe.

With brutal critical (2) the greataxe goes to 84.5 while the 2d6 weapon goes to 84. With brutal critical (3) the greataxe deals 91 damage and the 2d6 weapon scores a total of 87.5, so just a d6 of difference.

This is not favouring playstyles, the difference is negligeable at best even at higher levels. Let's please stop this.

@OP, refluff a maul as a greatclub and call it a day. You can't complain that you are dealing less damage with an ability based on weapons because you use a weapon that deals less damage.

[bid]

78 total damage. averages to 80.5, more than the greataxe.

With brutal critical (2) the greataxe goes to 84.5 while the 2d6 weapon goes to 84. With brutal critical (3) the greataxe deals 91 damage and the 2d6 weapon scores a total of 87.5, so just a d6 of difference.

To put in perspective:
Here maul does 3% more damage, with brutal critical (1).

Whenever you kill an enemy, some of the killing damage is "wasted". You prolly do 15 damage per hit on average, "wasting" 7.5 damage per kill.
That "waste" is 9% less damage, when you kill a single one.


tl;dr
The chunkiness of overkill drowns any difference between maul and greataxe.

[Anonymouswizard]

So basically you're saying, "Weapon lists are stupid, give me a set of abstract weapon trait permutations or make damage a class property and let me handle the rest"? (The OP, that is.)

Honestly, I am much happier when games do this. 'Large weapons use d12s for damage, pick a damage type' works much better than 5e's system of printing each weapon three times but with differing damage (sometimes four times). Damage as a class property is also cool, I believe it's what 13th Age does and it's the one reason I'm interested in the system.


Heck, my DM even lets us refluff a greatsword into a greataxe if we want the 2d6 vs the d12. None of this really breaks the game. I say, refluff the stats, then you get the best of both worlds!

Sure, I get that it doesn't break the balance of the game if you move around weapon stats, and my GM would be fine with a 1d12 big stick. I'm just annoyed at the pigeon holing of classes, using Barbarians and greataxes as that's what's relevant to my current character.


Why worry about petty damage? Play the character. Pick a greatclub and roll with it. Have fun. Don't limit yourself to numbers.

1d8 damage for a two handed weapon? I can't work out if the designers were smoking something, it's literally an inferior quarterstaf


I know what you mean and I ran into this problem to (at least in my opinion with the monk). Wushu uses a lot of weapons and also a lot of dual wielding (Dao, Tiger Hook Sword, Butterfly Sword, Hammers) guess what you can't really do as a monk? At least not as good as you should be able to? That's right, dual wielding.

Another issue is that some weapons are completely missing, like the Guandao (Glaive) or Monk's Spade, which you can't even get as a Kensei, because it's heavy. And of course then there is stuff like the Rope Dart or Meteor Hammer, which I can at least somewhat excuse, because they can't be properly represented by the existing rules.

In general, the way Monk Weapons are set up the only good options are Staff and Spear until your Martial Arts die catches up. Although, I guess an argument could be made for wielding two throwable weapons. But still, going full Yu Shu Lien on Jen Yu in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or One Hundred Eyes vs some poor Mongol soldiers in Marco Polo isn't really possible.

The Monk class is already quite pigeonholed thematically with it's heavy riff on eastern martial arts, but even then you can't even fully explore that.

Why can't a monk weild a jian? It's the one weapon you will see in Wuxia, and the 'Chinese style martial arts' class can't use it. Yeah, I'm also annoyed at the lack of wushu weapons monk's have access to.

[CantigThimble]

If the weapon you're using matters to you then use the weapon you want. If it doesn't, then pick the one with the best numbers.

I've played a fighter with a spear and used a shortsword over a rapier before for aesthetics reasons. Weirdly enough, losing 1 average damage doesn't actually render characters completely helpless in combat. Hard to believe, but it's true.

[randomodo]

Then you haven't read what the 5e ability scores cover.

As written ("agility, reflexes, and balance") Dex shouldn't apply to archery either. Which begs the question of what is the most appropriate stat. For something like a crossbow, you can make a case that wisdom or intelligence are at least as important as dexterity

[2D8HP]

I do sympathize about, for example, the lack of mechanical support for ranged paladins, and the lack of slashing finesse weapons (seriously, watch a sabre fencing match in slow motion and tell me they're not heavily-dependant on Dex).


All weapons rely on DEX RL, and use of RL Longbows in very dependent on RL strength.

I suppose a rule that all "To Hit" rolls are DEX based, and all Damage rolls are Strength based (except maybe for crossbow?) may work (as someone else suggested in a previous thread).


They are, in that D&D Dex modifies your chance not to get hit due to superior balance and footwork.

But yeah, not the attacking part. Finesse melee weapons should not exist at all in D&D. They're really just a sop to the Rogue.

Thank you Devs!

[mephnick]

I do sympathize about, for example, the lack of mechanical support for ranged paladins

I don't. Lack of range is literally the class' SINGLE weakness and doesn't tie into the tropes of the Paladin at all.

[suplee215]

I feel like a lot of times players want everything and the kitchen sink and complain when developers don't give it to them. A maul fluffed as a great club is not that less than a greataxe, and according to math is actually superior despite feeling inferior when you get lucky to crit. If anything the greataxe is the weakest of the heavy weapons as there is no real reason to use it from a pure math reason outside of the half-orc in a few cases. Also I feel like ultimately we need to allow this as a game with mechanical things that will not always fit concepts.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But yeah, not the attacking part. Finesse melee weapons should not exist at all in D&D. They're really just a sop to the Rogue.
Not just Rogues, to be fair; they're a sop to the huge swathe of melee fighter tropes that aren't "burly guy in heavy armor."

Then again, I'm on record arguing that 5e would improved by ditching ability scores altogether, but eh.

[Trask]

This problem could be easily fixed by switching to a weapon system where you use a generic "simple", "martial", and "two handed" weapon system where one is d6, the other is d8, and the other is 2d6 or 1d12. Drop the variables because they dont matter anyway. Let the players buy a weapon from the category and describe it however they want.

[Knaight]

The problem here is that there are two fundamentally different approached to weapon design, which push for very different things. I'll call them Type I and Type II.

Type I weapon design portrays the weapons as in setting tools. A given character can be expected to use different weapons for different situations, and the weapons emphatically aren't matters of characterization or aesthetic styling. It's also usually relatively common for the entire party to come up with specific weapon load-outs for specific situations, bringing short swords and knives to a dense forest, maces when raiding a tomb, and big polearms when headed to the battlefield.

Type II weapon design portrays the weapons as components of character aesthetic. There's often at least some vestigial Type I design (e.g. making a distinction between ranged and melee weapons, or separating out reach weapons), particularly when the functionality ties into the aesthetic, such as with archers using bows to stay out of the melee. Beyond that though characters generally use the same weapons consistently, and that choice is usually made more because of the symbolic value of the weapons than anything else.

You clearly favor Type II here. In Type I, there being one best option given the circumstances is just fine, though it's generally preferred that the circumstances be external and not internal. Unfortunately, D&D started with a hard Type I design parameter, and is now largely being designed to better fit Type II, while still tightly attached to a lot of legacy design. The end result here is an ungainly mixture.

[mephnick]

You clearly favor Type II here. In Type I, there being one best option given the circumstances is just fine, though it's generally preferred that the circumstances be external and not internal. Unfortunately, D&D started with a hard Type I design parameter, and is now largely being designed to better fit Type II, while still tightly attached to a lot of legacy design. The end result here is an ungainly mixture.

Agreed. I don't like Type II, which I first encountered in Numenera (played very briefly), but once your game starts shifting towards Type II just go with it. The weapons in 5e are generally meaningless so just make them meaningless. I prefer they had meaning though..

[Lombra]

1d8 damage for a two handed weapon? I can't work out if the designers were smoking something, it's literally an inferior quarterstaf



Why can't a monk weild a jian? It's the one weapon you will see in Wuxia, and the 'Chinese style martial arts' class can't use it. Yeah, I'm also annoyed at the lack of wushu weapons monk's have access to.

You can't complain about being ineffective while swinging an oversized piece of wood. Not all weapons are designed to be "the best", they're here mostly for reference, the manual even encourages the refluffing of them.

A jian is literally a shortsword.

[strangebloke]

This just in: Player is mad that weapon choice has mechanical implications.

And they're very small mechanical implications. With a greatclub, you're missing out on 2 damage on a regular hit or 4 damage on a crit. With a maul, you're dealing 0.5 more on a hit and only 2 less damage on a crit. (1/10 of the time) That's a ridiculously small thing to complain about. If you care that much about aesthetic, just use a greatclub. I'll bet that you don't even notice the missing damage. Heck, pick up tavern brawler, pick up a sharpened tree branch, say that it's an improvised 'greataxe' and go to town. If you want to be 100% optimized and fit your aesthetic, badger your DM to let you play with a homebrewed "greathammer" that deals 1d12. I'd see you as a little petulant, but I'd let you do it.

As a firm "Type I" weapon-user, I think it's ridiculous to tie your character concept to a specific weapon. "Club guy" is not a particularly robust concept. Most of the works I draw inspiration from showcased warriors who always used the most effective weapon available. In LotR, for instance, most of the martials are disciplined with multiple weapons. Aragorn uses a knife, greatsword, bow, and we see on weathertop that he's carrying half a dozen shortswords. Thorin uses tree branches, torches, a sword, and yes, even a bow. Bilbo uses a dagger, rocks, and a litany of insults. In Mistborn, Vim uses knives, swords, coins... a lot of different weapons. Usagi (the rabbit) uses swords primarily, but also can use a polearm or bow if the situation calls for it.

I do wish we had more detailed weapon tables, incidentally, at least as an option. I'm not a big simulatory guy, but weapons are one of those areas where more simulatory aspects is more better.

...In other words, I want your pain to increase, not decrease.

[JoeJ]

I do wish we had more detailed weapon tables, incidentally, at least as an option. I'm not a big simulatory guy, but weapons are one of those areas where more simulatory aspects is more better.

They did that in 1e. The polearms were a special delight. As I recall, you could wield a glaive, glaive bill, glaive voulge, glaive guisarme, glaive fork, glaive fauchard fork, glaive voulge bill & glaive, glaive glaive fork voulge & glaive, or glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive fork glaive glaive glaive & glaive.

[Crgaston]

They did that in 1e. The polearms were a special delight. As I recall, you could wield a glaive, glaive bill, glaive voulge, glaive guisarme, glaive fork, glaive fauchard fork, glaive voulge bill & glaive, glaive glaive fork voulge & glaive, or glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive fork glaive glaive glaive & glaive.

Don’t forget the bohemian ear spoon.

[Pelle]

As a firm "Type I" weapon-user, I think it's ridiculous to tie your character concept to a specific weapon. "Club guy" is not a particularly robust concept.

100% agreed, but I would just like to mention Heracles :smallsmile:

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Don’t forget the bohemian ear spoon.

I think you're drifting into another sketch, sir. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html)

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem here is that there are two fundamentally different approached to weapon design, which push for very different things. I'll call them Type I and Type II.

Type I weapon design portrays the weapons as in setting tools. A given character can be expected to use different weapons for different situations, and the weapons emphatically aren't matters of characterization or aesthetic styling. It's also usually relatively common for the entire party to come up with specific weapon load-outs for specific situations, bringing short swords and knives to a dense forest, maces when raiding a tomb, and big polearms when headed to the battlefield.

Type II weapon design portrays the weapons as components of character aesthetic. There's often at least some vestigial Type I design (e.g. making a distinction between ranged and melee weapons, or separating out reach weapons), particularly when the functionality ties into the aesthetic, such as with archers using bows to stay out of the melee. Beyond that though characters generally use the same weapons consistently, and that choice is usually made more because of the symbolic value of the weapons than anything else.

You clearly favor Type II here. In Type I, there being one best option given the circumstances is just fine, though it's generally preferred that the circumstances be external and not internal. Unfortunately, D&D started with a hard Type I design parameter, and is now largely being designed to better fit Type II, while still tightly attached to a lot of legacy design. The end result here is an ungainly mixture.
That's a tremendously insightful way of looking at it. I don't know that I've seen many systems at all that really encourage Type I design, and D&D-- especially 5e-- isn't even remotely one of them. +1 to all of this.

I wonder if there's not design room for a "versatile fighter" feat to encourage this sort of thing, though it would be pretty finicky.

[Potato_Priest]

I do sympathize about, for example, the lack of mechanical support for ranged paladins, and the lack of slashing finesse weapons (seriously, watch a sabre fencing match in slow motion and tell me they're not heavily-dependant on Dex).

I would just like to point out that the Scimitar is a slashing finesse weapon.

They're also quite similar to a cavalry saber in appearance and (although I'm totally just guessing here) most likely usage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Let's play Rolemaster!

On second thought, let's not play Rolemaster!

[gloryblaze]

I would just like to point out that the Scimitar is a slashing finesse weapon.

They're also quite similar to a cavalry saber in appearance and (although I'm totally just guessing here) most likely usage.

The whip, too. Plenty of slashing finesse weapons :smallbiggrin:

[strangebloke]

They did that in 1e. The polearms were a special delight. As I recall, you could wield a glaive, glaive bill, glaive voulge, glaive guisarme, glaive fork, glaive fauchard fork, glaive voulge bill & glaive, glaive glaive fork voulge & glaive, or glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive glaive fork glaive glaive glaive & glaive.
*swoons*

100% agreed, but I would just like to mention Heracles :smallsmile:
I know you're joking, but 'club guy' is not really an important part of heracles' legend. He uses arrows and his bare hands as much as anything.

That's a tremendously insightful way of looking at it. I don't know that I've seen many systems at all that really encourage Type I design, and D&D-- especially 5e-- isn't even remotely one of them. +1 to all of this.

I wonder if there's not design room for a "versatile fighter" feat to encourage this sort of thing, though it would be pretty finicky.
I though it was a really good take as well.

Sadly, the closest we've gotten to weapon choice being significant is the weapon-style feats... which discourages versatility, rather than encourage it.

[Rynjin]

The basic concept of the OP is a bit part of why I stopped playing 5e. I couldn't stand that I was essentially banned from playing a Bowbarian or ranged Paladin, or Ranger with a Greatsword, or what have you.

The Fighting Styles thing is an interesting addition to martial classes, but they should have just made a single master list and told all classes that could choose one to refer to that instead of parceling out which specific ones are available to who so I can play a sword and board Ranger if I so choose without losing out on a whole class feature.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd say most weapons require more dexterity than strength to wield and do damage with. Weapons are incredible force multipliers and you certainly need some strength to properly wield a weapon. But a properly sharpened sword will cut deep regardless who swings it.

You can't cut someone in Plate or even Mail no matter how sharp your sword is. Specific thrusting swords could force mail rings apart, but still would be useless against plate, thus heavier Maces, Axes, and Poleaxes became the norm for fighting a foe in armor, and the sword became relegated to a backup and when used would be used very different from how movies show it.

Since the center mass on weapons that were effective against armor was farther from where the grip than on a sword, they took more strength to use effectively.

But all this history is besides the point in a fantasy game, which is more about Fantastic archetypes that functional real world weaponry.

The strong fighter archetype and quick fighter archetype are both supported in 5e. Which is a great thing.

[strangebloke]

The basic concept of the OP is a bit part of why I stopped playing 5e. I couldn't stand that I was essentially banned from playing a Bowbarian or ranged Paladin, or Ranger with a Greatsword, or what have you.

The Fighting Styles thing is an interesting addition to martial classes, but they should have just made a single master list and told all classes that could choose one to refer to that instead of parceling out which specific ones are available to who so I can play a sword and board Ranger if I so choose without losing out on a whole class feature.

I mean, you can play a fighter with the outlander background who is a barbarian in all but name. I don't really see Rage as conceptually compatible with firing arrows; I can't think of a single mindlessly raging archer in all of fiction.

A divine archer is also pretty doable. A wood elf war cleric with sharpshooter isn't quite optimal, but it is pretty badass. A divine-themed ranger or blood hunter is also perfectly workable, and gets pretty close to the paladin fluff.

I would agree that I prefer for all martial classes to have access to all fighting styles. I don't see why giving Paladin's TWF as an option was particularly game-breaking, for example.


You can't cut someone in Plate or even Mail no matter how sharp your sword is. Specific thrusting swords could force mail rings apart, but still would be useless against plate, thus heavier Maces, Axes, and Poleaxes became the norm for fighting a foe in armor, and the sword became relegated to a backup and when used would be used very different from how movies show it.

Since the center mass on weapons that were effective against armor was farther from where the grip than on a sword, they took more strength to use effectively.

But all this history is besides the point in a fantasy game, which is more about Fantastic archetypes that functional real world weaponry.

The strong fighter archetype and quick fighter archetype are both supported in 5e. Which is a great thing.

Quibble: you actually could use a sword against plate. You'd grab the blade with your armored mits and hit them with the crossguard.

But if we're being truly historic, everyone used spears. Long spears, short ones, but always spears.

[GlenSmash!]

Quibble: you actually could use a sword against plate. You'd grab the blade with your armored mits and hit them with the crossguard.

But if we're being truly historic, everyone used spears. Long spears, short ones, but always spears.

I never said you couldn't use a sword. I said you couldn't cut, and also very unlikely to successfully thrust, with it. In fact half-swording and Mordhau/Mordschlag is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote:


would be used very different from how movies show it

[strangebloke]

I never said you couldn't use a sword. I said you couldn't cut, and also very unlikely to successfully thrust, with it. In fact half-swording and Mordhau/Mordschlag is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote:

Ah, sorry. I would point out, too, that 5e heroes are far beyond mortal strength/skill levels. In principle, there's no reason you couldn't hack through mail if you had a good cut alignment and enough force. And I run with 'HP isn't meat' anyway, so a 'hit' might just mean that you slam his helmet with the flat of your blade and scramble his eggs.

If I was designing a weapons table, I think I would cap out the bonus you can get from either strength or dexterity for each weapon, but have each weapon get a certain level of bonus from each.

So longbows can use a lot of strength, and a lot of Dexterity, which is part of what makes them top-tier in the long run, but they require a lot of investment to work well. Conversely, a crossbow requires only a little strength and you don't get more value past a certain point, but you can still get decent value from Dexterity and it might have a higher damage die than the longbow. Swords gain a bigger bonus from Dexterity than maces, etc.

Then the armor tables include 3.5-style damage resistance for various things...

[GlenSmash!]

Ah, sorry. I would point out, too, that 5e heroes are far beyond mortal strength/skill levels..snipped, but these points are good too...

Yep, that was my other point. That D&D isn't and shouldn't be a Historical War simulator since it's more about heroic/fantastical archetypes.

High strength characters and high dex characters both work fine right now.

[Anonymouswizard]

The problem here is that there are two fundamentally different approached to weapon design, which push for very different things. I'll call them Type I and Type II.

Type I weapon design portrays the weapons as in setting tools. A given character can be expected to use different weapons for different situations, and the weapons emphatically aren't matters of characterization or aesthetic styling. It's also usually relatively common for the entire party to come up with specific weapon load-outs for specific situations, bringing short swords and knives to a dense forest, maces when raiding a tomb, and big polearms when headed to the battlefield.

Type II weapon design portrays the weapons as components of character aesthetic. There's often at least some vestigial Type I design (e.g. making a distinction between ranged and melee weapons, or separating out reach weapons), particularly when the functionality ties into the aesthetic, such as with archers using bows to stay out of the melee. Beyond that though characters generally use the same weapons consistently, and that choice is usually made more because of the symbolic value of the weapons than anything else.

You clearly favor Type II here. In Type I, there being one best option given the circumstances is just fine, though it's generally preferred that the circumstances be external and not internal. Unfortunately, D&D started with a hard Type I design parameter, and is now largely being designed to better fit Type II, while still tightly attached to a lot of legacy design. The end result here is an ungainly mixture.

I'm not against type 1, when the game is set up for it. My character carries both piercing and slashing weapons for when hitting things with a big stick doesn't work or is ineffective. It's just the character I have would not use a two-handed axe if she could get away with it, and yet the desginers seem to think they should (although looking at the maths, I might stick with the maul as any damage lost will be made up for by the more reliable output of sd2). I'm also planning to pick up a reach weapon for fighting across barriers, a bow for harassing enemies before they get close, and several small concealable weapons just in case I have to leave the big ones behind.

Heck, I once carried more weapons than the rest of the party, and if I was playing a Fighter I'd be trying to do so (most likely going for the final list of Battleaxe, Warhammer, Rapier, Pike, Longbow, 4+ Daggers, Net, anything the GM lets me carry that we find). As it is I'm starting with a maul, two handaxes, a bunch of javelins, and a dagger, and plan to pick up a pike and maybe a glaive ASAP. I'm more annoyed about being told I should have a weapon I don't want than being forced to carry multiple weapons.

Actually, might go for the 'carries a bunch of weapons and picks the most appropriate' as a thing. The discussion has convinced me that it's a much better representation of the archetype I want. Sacrifice raw damage for using a shield for AC, carry a bunch of weapons, spend part of my share of the treasure of getting a nice collection, and laugh when it turns out the other warrior probably only has a sword and a bow.

Although the bias towards type 2 in the industry is massive, games either don't differentiate weapons enough or make taking skills in more than one weapon not relatively expensive (GURPS is one of the few I've seen that doesn't do it).


A jian is literally a shortsword.

Closer to a longsword really. It's a one handed double edged slashing blade! A shorter blade than a knightly sword or spatha would have had, but it's not a short blade used for stabbing.

[Knaight]

Sadly, the closest we've gottent o weapon choice being significant is the weapon-style feats... which would discourage versatility, rather than encourage it.

This gets back to what I was talking about with Type I designs reflecting either internal (character side, type Ib) differences or external (situation side, type Ia) differences. A lot of them are almost entirely type Ib, where various weapons are better for various builds, and you essentially fit together a lot of synergistic mechanics then select the most synergistic weapon if optimizing.

As I said earlier, I generally find Type Ia far preferable to Type Ib. Frustratingly, type Ib designs seem to be vastly more common than Type Ia designs (though, as mentioned again Type II is yet more common).

[randomodo]

The whip, too. Plenty of slashing finesse weapons :smallbiggrin:

I stand corrected re: finesse slashers. Actually, I'm sitting down right now, but "I sit corrected" doesn't have the same ring to it.

[GlenSmash!]

Actually, I'm sitting down right now, but "I sit corrected" doesn't have the same ring to it.

It's sounds like you're in one of those special ergonomic chairs.