humanoid weapons

[Hilary]

If I want to mix it up with regard to what weapons the humanoid creatures employ, what is a good rule of thumb?

Should kobolds and goblins stick to simple weapons, while orcs and hobgoblins have access to martial weapons?

Or should it be more 'class' based - with kobolds and goblins sticking to wizard or druid class weapons and orcs and hobgoblins having the full range of fighter options?

or should they be more limited than this?

[quindraco]

If I want to mix it up with regard to what weapons the humanoid creatures employ, what is a good rule of thumb?

Should kobolds and goblins stick to simple weapons, while orcs and hobgoblins have access to martial weapons?

Or should it be more 'class' based - with kobolds and goblins sticking to wizard or druid class weapons and orcs and hobgoblins having the full range of fighter options?

or should they be more limited than this?

You mean, you're a DM, equipping NPCs?

Rule 0: Ignore weapons that no-one should ever wield, like tridents, and by extension, avoid "bad" weapons unless your creatures are poor as dirt and the worse weapons simply cost less. For example, outside of outright memery, absolutely no-one should carry a greatclub - a quarterstaff is the same cost, weighs less, and does more.
Rule 1: No heavy weapons on small creatures. That means they're strongly encouraged by the physics of the universe to sword-and-board.
Rule 2: The primary thing governing your weapons should be what the creatures can credibly afford. More expensive weapons are harder to get.
Rule 3: Give spellcasters worse weapons.

So kobolds and goblins should by and large use shields, javelins, and spears. Orcs and hobgoblins should lean more towards mauls and halberds, for melee.

[JellyPooga]

You mean, you're a DM, equipping NPCs?

Rule 0: Ignore weapons that no-one should ever wield, like tridents, and by extension, avoid "bad" weapons unless your creatures are poor as dirt and the worse weapons simply cost less. For example, outside of outright memery, absolutely no-one should carry a greatclub - a quarterstaff is the same cost, weighs less, and does more.
Rule 1: No heavy weapons on small creatures. That means they're strongly encouraged by the physics of the universe to sword-and-board.
Rule 2: The primary thing governing your weapons should be what the creatures can credibly afford. More expensive weapons are harder to get.
Rule 3: Give spellcasters worse weapons.

So kobolds and goblins should by and large use shields, javelins, and spears. Orcs and hobgoblins should lean more towards mauls and halberds, for melee.

Counter-Rule 1: Small creatures with ready access to advantage to hit can employ Heavy weapons. This can make, for example, a Kobold phalanx with Sword&Board in the front ranks and Polearms in rear ranks a terrifying opponent to fight and suits their defensive MO and Pack Tactics well.

Counter-Rule 2:
(a) Expensive and rare weapons are frequently used as a status symbol. While this still falls into "credible affordability", the "rule-of-cool" overrides it to a certain degree when it comes to equipping at least your more significant NPCs.
(b) The primary thing governing your weapon choice is and always should be what role and purpose the NPC serves in the encounter. An NPC that is supposed to harry the PCs from the opposite bank of a raging river is going to require an appropriate ranged weapon even if such a weapon would normally be outside of that NPCs usual price range.

Counter-Rule 3: Corollary to C-R 2(a) Spellcasters are often more wealthy and/or powerful than their non-spellcasting peers; a phenomenon that is more ubiquitous the more primitive the society. It stands to reason, therefore, that in many cases a spellcaster should be wielding (or at least carrying) the most expensive, rare or impressive looking weapon as a symbol of status, even if they can't use it as well as their more martially inclined companions. Particularly if Intelligence isn't exactly the primary ability score of the NPC's in question.

[meandean]

Counter-Rule 1: Small creatures with ready access to advantage to hit can employ Heavy weapons. This can make, for example, a Kobold phalanx with Sword&Board in the front ranks and Polearms in rear ranks a terrifying opponent to fight and suits their defensive MO and Pack Tactics well.I think this is too meta. The kobolds don't know that they have "advantage due to Pack Tactics", or that "advantage cancels out disadvantage." I think they would try to pick up a polearm, realize it was too big for them, and wouldn't use it.

[PhantomSoul]

I'd also add:
- Creatures with higher Dexterity (than Strength) will favour Ranged and Finesse Melee Weapons.
- Creatures with higher Strength (than Dexterity) will favour Thrown Weapons as their Ranged option.
- Creatures likely to have had martial training are more likely to wield Martial Weapons (and Exotic ones, if you toss those in); for narrative interest, maybe a Creature has a Martial Weapon with no Proficiency to use it, though
- Creatures that are relatively fragile (low HP, low constitution, lots of weaknesses, etc.) will tend to prefer attacking from farther away
- Creatures who are especially fast but who have no flyby equivalent may prefer to have Reach Weapons (if they run in and then run out)
- Creatures with beefier allies (or relevant mounts) are more likely to have Reach, Thrown or Ranged Weapons

[JellyPooga]

I think this is too meta. The kobolds don't know that they have "advantage due to Pack Tactics", or that "advantage cancels out disadvantage." I think they would try to pick up a polearm, realize it was too big for them, and wouldn't use it.

Ancient Greek Hoplite Phalanx.

The historical existence of which proves you wrong. There are plenty of weapons throughout history that are too big, too small, too impractical, too expensive, too hard to use and many other "too"s...and yet they existed, were used and have their place in history. Even successfully (like the above mentioned).

Looking at what can be achieved with a given weapon from the context of the NPCs perspective is all that really matters; in my particular example, Kobolds are well positioned to take advantage of Pack Tactics using Reach weapons, but from their perspective; individually they are worse off, but as a group they exceed the sum of their individual contribution. Sound Kobold thinking, right there :smallwink:

[PhantomSoul]

Ancient Greek Hoplite Phalanx.

The historical existence of which proves you wrong. There are plenty of weapons throughout history that are too big, too small, too impractical, too expensive, too hard to use and many other "too"s...and yet they existed, were used and have their place in history. Even successfully (like the above mentioned).

Looking at what can be achieved with a given weapon from the context of the NPCs perspective is all that really matters; in my particular example, Kobolds are well positioned to take advantage of Pack Tactics using Reach weapons, but from their perspective; individually they are worse off, but as a group they exceed the sum of their individual contribution. Sound Kobold thinking, right there :smallwink:

And Kobold seem especially likely to have tried something silly (maybe they were scavenged weapons or spoils of victory!) to discover that it's effective! (Particularly since they're likely to be in large enough groups to run out of space in close stabbing range="adjacent spaces".)

[MrStabby]

I think that some of it comes down to worldbuilding. What do you want in your world?

A number of races get weapon proficiencies - dwarfs, elves speing to mind. Doing something similar to your NPCs in a consistent way can add to the world.

[BRC]

I think this is too meta. The kobolds don't know that they have "advantage due to Pack Tactics", or that "advantage cancels out disadvantage." I think they would try to pick up a polearm, realize it was too big for them, and wouldn't use it.

Not neccessarily.

Pack Tactics represents "Kobolds are good at ganging up on a target", and realizing that they can use reach weapons to gang up on a target is easy for anybody to realize. Kobolds are not stupid.
"Big weapon hits harder but is hard to use. Easier to hit targets if friends are distracting them!"


One thing to consider is refluffing weapons beyond the basics in the PHB, this is especially the case with Finesse weapons, or awkward looking weapons like the Trident.

The PHB provides exactly one d8 (So- top tier) Finessable weapon: The Rapier. But that doesn't mean every wealthy dex-based foe needs to be a Musketeer. It's easy enough to give them a well-made cutlass or scimitar or anything else that fits their aesthetic and make it a d8 Finessable weapon. You should keep it within the realm of reason (Bludgeoning weapons should probably not be finessable for example)

Similarly, "Spear and Shield" is an iconic Look you might want to use (For, say, an Ancient Greek Hoplite aesthetic), but the system puts that as generally inferior to a sword or axe for a martial character. If you want a spear, go ahead and make a d8 Spear.


Otherwise, here's some thoughts.


1) Is your monster part of an Organized Millitary of some sort. If not? you're not likely to see Swords. Swords are hard to make, and are exclusively used for warfare. A blacksmith who makes wood axes can stretch to make a battleaxe far easier than they can make a longsword. Swords are a status symbol.

[Keltest]

Something else to consider is the rarity of the materials the weapons are made of. Elves will use axes (and complain about it to no end) or spears if iron and metal is very limited in availability, just because those weapons are more metal-efficient than a sword. Meanwhile kobolds might actually be inclined towards heavier metal armors, just because thats what they have available. Even if they cant use it well, its better than nothing if they dont have access to tanned leather.

[tKUUNK]

I tend to arm my NPCs largely based on the flavor of the encounter.

some factors:
local environment
preferred tactics
availability of weapons OR materials to craft them
do these creatures belong to a certain militia, army, or cult with standard gear?

you get the drift!

[KorvinStarmast]

So kobolds and goblins should by and large use shields, javelins, and spears. Orcs and hobgoblins should lean more towards mauls and halberds, for melee. Orcs already use a great ax by default in the MM. (Your thematic approach strikes a chord with me).

[Catullus64]

Hobgoblins fighting in three ranks (Rank 1: Sword + Shield, Rank 2: Pikes/Glaives/Halberds, Rank 3: Bows/Crossbows) make for a terrifying infantry block with Martial Advantage.

Lizardfolk get no less than four weapons in their statblock... which all do the same damage. Bump up their clubs to d8s, and now every weapon has its advantages (javelins can be thrown, bite can't be disarmed, spiked shield is still a shield).

[MrStabby]

Hobgoblins fighting in three ranks (Rank 1: Sword + Shield, Rank 2: Pikes/Glaives/Halberds, Rank 3: Bows/Crossbows) make for a terrifying infantry block with Martial Advantage.

Lizardfolk get no less than four weapons in their statblock... which all do the same damage. Bump up their clubs to d8s, and now every weapon has its advantages (javelins can be thrown, bite can't be disarmed, spiked shield is still a shield).

Much, much scarier if they can get some fire resistance from somewhere.

[da newt]

Give them whatever makes sense / is useful in your world. I prefer to give the less industrious humanoids weapons like war picks because they are cheap and easy to make, many stat blocks lack shields so I give them out if the foe needs a little AC boost, and folks who should try to fight at range (goblins) get at least a sling.

I also like to hand out the less common weapons like flails and morning stars and darts and nets, just because most PCs don't use them, and javelin are cheap and effective.

As for Greek Hoplite Phalanxes - find an example of a group of 2'6" tall 30 lb human warriors (normal kobold according to Volo's) using polearms and this argument becomes relevant, otherwise its as useful as referencing the giant weapons used in anime as precedent for your elf to wield a fire giant's sword.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for Greek Hoplite Phalanxes - find an example of a group of 2'6" tall 30 lb human warriors (normal kobold according to Volo's) using polearms and this argument becomes relevant, otherwise its as useful as referencing the giant weapons used in anime as precedent for your elf to wield a fire giant's sword. *golf clap*

[quinron]

As for Greek Hoplite Phalanxes - find an example of a group of 2'6" tall 30 lb human warriors (normal kobold according to Volo's) using polearms and this argument becomes relevant, otherwise its as useful as referencing the giant weapons used in anime as precedent for your elf to wield a fire giant's sword.

Counterpoint: find me an example of a 3-foot-tall, 40- to 45-pound human (normal halfling according to PHB) capable of wielding a longsword as long or longer than their body in one hand as capably as someone 5-6 feet tall weighing 125-250 pounds (normal human ranges per PHB again). Or just accept that most of the abstraction budget this edition seems to have gone to trimming and simplifying the weapons tables.

For OP: I think "class-based" is, broadly speaking, the most logical way to go, but you'll want to extrapolate a class from the monster's features. So, using goblinoids for example: goblins are rogues (stealth & skirmishing traits), hobgoblins are fighters (better armor & weapons in-book), and bugbears are rangers (both stealthy and strong, but not great equipment).

[Rakaydos]

As for Greek Hoplite Phalanxes - find an example of a group of 2'6" tall 30 lb human warriors (normal kobold according to Volo's) using polearms and this argument becomes relevant, otherwise its as useful as referencing the giant weapons used in anime as precedent for your elf to wield a fire giant's sword.

Scale the 2'6 spearman to a 5' human pikeman, and a 30' pole is extremely awkward but still usable in large groups.

Also, the world is magic- my last 5e character was a kobold fighter with the spellcasting subclass, who could summon a 6' long "sephoroth sword" out of thin air.

[quindraco]

Scale the 2'6 spearman to a 5' human pikeman, and a 30' pole is extremely awkward but still usable in large groups.

Also, the world is magic- my last 5e character was a kobold fighter with the spellcasting subclass, who could summon a 6' long "sephoroth sword" out of thin air.

Sure, but why would you deliberately nerf yourself with a greatsword when a longsword would do better for you in practice?

[Telwar]

As for Greek Hoplite Phalanxes - find an example of a group of 2'6" tall 30 lb human warriors (normal kobold according to Volo's) using polearms and this argument becomes relevant, otherwise its as useful as referencing the giant weapons used in anime as precedent for your elf to wield a fire giant's sword.

Other thoughts:
Polearms and other reach weapons are not useful in tight tunnels, like kobold warrens. Outdoors, yes, but they don't seem to want to fight outdoors unless they have to.
Lances are not Heavy, but instead Special. Thus they don't grant disadvantage on attacks unless they're within five feet. This then preserves the advantage from pack tactics. Perhaps the kobolds have their lower-status warriors run in ahead of the lances, granting advantage to the higher-status dragoons (who may still be mounted on their giant weasel mounts).

Of course, instead of using weapons they would have a penalty to wield, the disposable meat advantage caste (who are dual wielding daggers or shortswords) could instead be backed by an archer/slinger group.

[Unoriginal]

Any army that relies extensively on formations with a a lot of people standing as close to each other as possible is going to face trouble in the D&D world, because a non-insignificant number of individuals (and creatures) can and will use AOEs on packed enemies.

I'm not saying that no one will ever use those formations, because they are still useful, but it's likely any leader with battlefield awareness will want their troops trained to them to switch between "packed" and "dispersed" formations ASAP depending on what they're facing.

Which of course leads to tactics where you trick the opponent into adopting the wrong formation...

[Catullus64]

Any army that relies extensively on formations with a a lot of people standing as close to each other as possible is going to face trouble in the D&D world, because a non-insignificant number of individuals (and creatures) can and will use AOEs on packed enemies.

I'm not saying that no one will ever use those formations, because they are still useful, but it's likely any leader with battlefield awareness will want their troops trained to them to switch between "packed" and "dispersed" formations ASAP depending on what they're facing.

Which of course leads to tactics where you trick the opponent into adopting the wrong formation...

You could always run things as I do, and decide that well-formed shield walls and formations count as half or three-quarters cover for the people in them (though for the latter case I would say that such a formation also slows its members significantly). Cover bonuses apply to Dexterity saving throws. Depending on the range and scope of area attacks available to your enemies, a dense formation might be better.

[JellyPooga]

Other thoughts:
Polearms and other reach weapons are not useful in tight tunnels, like kobold warrens. Outdoors, yes, but they don't seem to want to fight outdoors unless they have to.

Polearms, particularly of the stabby variety, are pretty good for tunnel fighting for the same reasons that they're good in formations. To fight effectively with a sword or axe requires space, but a pokey stick just goes forward and back. A polearm fighter also has a relatively weak flank that a mobile opponent can exploit; not so if those flanks are occupied and it doesn't make a heap of difference if it's a person or a wall protecting your weak spot.

When it comes down to it, tunnel fighting is about leveraging as many sharp, pointy things in as small a space as possible and spears, pikes and other long pokey things are good at doing just that. An Adventurer with a sword in a 5ft wide corridor can only attack the opponent directly in front of them, but a pair of kobolds with Reach can both attack that same Adventurer.

Where polearms theoretically fail in tunnels is when corners are involved; it's hard to maneuver a 10ft pole around 5ft corners, but standard DnD combat grids are conspicuously quiet on that particular front.


Lances are not Heavy, but instead Special. Thus they don't grant disadvantage on attacks unless they're within five feet. This then preserves the advantage from pack tactics. Perhaps the kobolds have their lower-status warriors run in ahead of the lances, granting advantage to the higher-status dragoons (who may still be mounted on their giant weasel mounts).

Of course, instead of using weapons they would have a penalty to wield, the disposable meat advantage caste (who are dual wielding daggers or shortswords) could instead be backed by an archer/slinger group.

All good stuff! I posted a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611156-Underdog-(Kobold-discussion)) many moons ago that garnered little to no interest discussing such possibilities. If you're interested.

[Unoriginal]

You could always run things as I do, and decide that well-formed shield walls and formations count as half or three-quarters cover for the people in them (though for the latter case I would say that such a formation also slows its members significantly). Cover bonuses apply to Dexterity saving throws. Depending on the range and scope of area attacks available to your enemies, a dense formation might be better.

I can see why you run that way, but I prefer AOEs playing the role of pack-formation-disruptors. Which is where they shine.

[Draconi Redfir]

i always like to add small, subtle bonuses and tweaks to weapons for certain races.

For example Elves make excellent Slashing and Piecing weapons, but no blunt weapons of any kind. Elven-made weapons get a non-magical +1 attack buff to slashing-damage weapons.

Similarly, Dwarves could make slashing and Bludgeoning weapons, but no piercing weapons, and their bludgeoning weapons get a non-magical +1 to damage.



Dwarvencraft: +1 damage to blunt-type weapons
Elvencraft: +1 attack to slashing-type weapons
Halflingcraft: +1 attack to ranged weapons
Orccraft: +1 bleed for 1d2 rounds for slashing weapons
Hobgoblincraft: +damage to peircing-type weapons
Goblinsgraft: +5ft to ranged weapons and explosive radius
Bugbearcraft: All light weapons count as finesse weapons? Extra damage to slashing-type weapons?
Humancraft: 1/2 gold price
Gnomecraft: Exotic weapons have reduced penalties to those not profficient with them

Earlier ideas had Elven weapons having an increased crit-range, Orc weapons being the only / main source of cold-iron, and Dwarven weapons using damage dice one level higher then normal. ultimately scrapped those though.


Feel free to take and manipulate these concepts if you'd like.

[Catullus64]

I can see why you run that way, but I prefer AOEs playing the role of pack-formation-disruptors. Which is where they shine.

It can go both ways, depending on point-of-origin for an AoE. Since a shield wall provides front-facing cover, its benefits will apply against a Lightning Bolt or a Cone of Cold (technically a CON save and not affected by cover, but I houserule cover to apply to other stuff) cast by an enemy in front of them, but a Fireball with its point of origin placed behind the shield wall will bypass it, even if the caster is on the other side.

[PhantomSoul]

Similarly, Dwarves could make slashing and Bludgeoning weapons, but no piercing weapons, and their bludgeoning weapons get a non-magical +1 to damage.

Out of curiosity, do your Dwarves still have the mining stereotype? (Or do they just get their pickaxes elsewhere and/or those are tools not weapons so aren't really part of this?)

[meandean]

Pack Tactics represents "Kobolds are good at ganging up on a target", and realizing that they can use reach weapons to gang up on a target is easy for anybody to realize. Kobolds are not stupid.
"Big weapon hits harder but is hard to use. Easier to hit targets if friends are distracting them!"Do kobolds also frolic in the sunlight, because they've also figured out that Pack Tactics means that doesn't matter either?

If and when you allow kobolds to be PCs, that's a different story. You can't ask a PC to make character creation decisions as if they're unaware of the game mechanics. And of course, you can have a kobold who's doing a crazy thing that "doesn't make sense", but works... that would be very kobold indeed. But to postulate that an NPC race's standard weapon is one that they would never use absent the "any advantage cancels out any disadvantage" rule, which isn't meant to reflect how a culture would actually experience life, but rather to make gameplay more manageable? I don't think it's fair, personally.

[PhantomSoul]

Do kobolds also frolic in the sunlight, because they've also figured out that Pack Tactics means that doesn't matter either?

I'd guess that they still prefer being outside of the sunlight given they know they're better that way -- but maybe they'll hazard it more than species without pack tactics and maybe that they'll do group attacks but avoid doing just anything. If the ambush they're planning hasn't sprung until after dawn, maybe they'll stick with it while another sunlight-sensitive species would quit and try again after dark or in a sheltered location.

(I think that while they don't know the game rule, that doesn't mean they're unaware of the in-world repercussions that rule captures, since that's their normal life. They might explain it differently, e.g. "when my ally's there to distract a creature, I can more easily get a swing in with this ACME-branded weapon and get their hurt on, but without that ally I'm better off picking something less unwieldy if I can.")

[Draconi Redfir]

Out of curiosity, do your Dwarves still have the mining stereotype? (Or do they just get their pickaxes elsewhere and/or those are tools not weapons so aren't really part of this?)

I'm honestly not sure, i never really got around to fleshing out their lore. current thought is that they'd just not classify pickaxes as weapons. Mainly i was thinking Dwarves wouldn't make the likes of spears and arrows.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm honestly not sure, i never really got around to fleshing out their lore. current thought is that they'd just not classify pickaxes as weapons. Mainly i was thinking Dwarves wouldn't make the likes of spears and arrows.

That makes sense; they're more tools that work tolerably as improvised weapons (scythes and pitchforks are essentially in the list, so there you go :P) rather than actual weapons. (Which is different from War Picks and the like, which they may branch into if they had to quickly shift to large-scale combat.)

[quinron]

I'd guess that they still prefer being outside of the sunlight given they know they're better that way -- but maybe they'll hazard it more than species without pack tactics and maybe that they'll do group attacks but avoid doing just anything. If the ambush they're planning hasn't sprung until after dawn, maybe they'll stick with it while another sunlight-sensitive species would quit and try again after dark or in a sheltered location.

(I think that while they don't know the game rule, that doesn't mean they're unaware of the in-world repercussions that rule captures, since that's their normal life. They might explain it differently, e.g. "when my ally's there to distract a creature, I can more easily get a swing in with this ACME-branded weapon and get their hurt on, but without that ally I'm better off picking something less unwieldy if I can.")

The kobold fluff that I remember from 3.5 (I don't have my Volo's to hand, nor have I read it that extensively) is that if they can gang up on someone, they're pretty happy to get violent, but if they're outnumbered they're utter cowards. Really, I don't think Pack Tactics is all that good of a model for that; I think it'd work better to have something more extreme, like, "if you have an ally within 5 ft, you get advantage on attacks; otherwise you have disadvantage."

[PhantomSoul]

The kobold fluff that I remember from 3.5 (I don't have my Volo's to hand, nor have I read it that extensively) is that if they can gang up on someone, they're pretty happy to get violent, but if they're outnumbered they're utter cowards. Really, I don't think Pack Tactics is all that good of a model for that; I think it'd work better to have something more extreme, like, "if you have an ally within 5 ft, you get advantage on attacks; otherwise you have disadvantage."

Or instead of Disadvantage on Attacks (which is more about being bad at attacking alone), Disadvantage on Saving Throws against being Frightened (or ideally all mental Saving Throws/Checks or something), given appropriate flavour text. A bonus to attack rolls based on ally counts would fit the gradient (dis)incentive angle, but obviously be more fiddly.

[JellyPooga]

Do kobolds also frolic in the sunlight, because they've also figured out that Pack Tactics means that doesn't matter either?

If and when you allow kobolds to be PCs, that's a different story. You can't ask a PC to make character creation decisions as if they're unaware of the game mechanics. And of course, you can have a kobold who's doing a crazy thing that "doesn't make sense", but works... that would be very kobold indeed. But to postulate that an NPC race's standard weapon is one that they would never use absent the "any advantage cancels out any disadvantage" rule, which isn't meant to reflect how a culture would actually experience life, but rather to make gameplay more manageable? I don't think it's fair, personally.

The game rules represent the recipients in-character personality/attitude. In this case, Kobolds are aware that they're better off than most in large numbers and as a consequence be willing to offset their disadvantages more than most under such circumstances. You might not see a lone kobold in a good mood under direct sunlight, but you might be more likely to see a raiding party of them than one of another Race with a similar sensitivity. That's not just a game mechanic, but in-game self-awareness.

The same applies to Pack Tactics vs. Heavy weapons for Small characters.

[Reach Weapon]

You can't ask a PC to make character creation decisions as if they're unaware of the game mechanics. [...] But to postulate that an NPC race's standard weapon is one that they would never use absent the "any advantage cancels out any disadvantage" rule, which isn't meant to reflect how a culture would actually experience life, but rather to make gameplay more manageable? I don't think it's fair, personally.

I could maybe accept this position a bit if we were clearly talking about higher level games and a character sheet that spelled out some sort of kolbold expertise... Could you expand on or explain your fairness doctrine as it relates to conforming challenge design to player metagaming expectations?

[meandean]

I could maybe accept this position a bit if we were clearly talking about higher level games and a character sheet that spelled out some sort of kolbold expertise... Could you expand on or explain your fairness doctrine as it relates to conforming challenge design to player metagaming expectations?Not on an abstract level absent specific examples, no. Every rule in the game is at least somewhat a simplification to make gameplay possible, and also at least somewhat a depiction of what's actually happening in the game world. It's up to you, both where you think any given rule lies along that spectrum, and what you want to do with that determination once you make it.

But, for instance, say there's a monster that has over 120 hit points and can't fly. I don't think it makes sense to postulate that this species has a tradition of hurling themselves off mile-high cliffs because they've "figured out" that the maximum fall damage is 20d6. That, at least to me, is a rule that is way closer to the "simplified game mechanic" pole than the "this is what people in the world actually experience" pole.

[PhantomSoul]

Not on an abstract level absent specific examples, no. Every rule in the game is at least somewhat a simplification to make gameplay possible, and also at least somewhat a depiction of what's actually happening in the game world. It's up to you, both where you think any given rule lies along that spectrum, and what you want to do with that determination once you make it.

But, for instance, say there's a monster that has over 120 hit points and can't fly. I don't think it makes sense to postulate that this species has a tradition of hurling themselves off mile-high cliffs because they've "figured out" that the maximum fall damage is 20d6. That, at least to me, is a rule that is way closer to the "simplified game mechanic" pole than the "this is what people in the world actually experience" pole.

And barring Shadar-Kai, they probably don't want to hurt themselves even if it's not fatal!
(But maybe when they look at the cliff and look at a predator in front of them, their mental calculus still goes, "well, my odds are better down there!"... but also they may never have learned there's a cap anyhow. Regardless of simplification or not, the rule most experienced is probably "higher falls hurt more" unless they systematically test things. And if HP are an abstraction anyway, well, it's probably not easy to test in-world anyhow!)

[Reach Weapon]

And barring Shadar-Kai, they probably don't want to hurt themselves even if it's not fatal!

I bet you could come up with so many real world examples of people accepting all sorts of acute or lingering pain, as well as short- and long-term ill effects for something as trivial as convenience, that you'll accept that your undeniably true statement isn't much of an argument.


But, for instance, say there's a monster that has over 120 hit points and can't fly. I don't think it makes sense to postulate that this species has a tradition of hurling themselves off mile-high cliffs because they've "figured out" that the maximum fall damage is 20d6. That, at least to me, is a rule that is way closer to the "simplified game mechanic" pole than the "this is what people in the world actually experience" pole.

I don't think it's fair, personally.

While I think it would be bad if they "figured out" underlying game mechanics, I am failing to wrap my head around why the issue would be at all related to what's "fair", if a bunch of monsters knew that relatively healthy members of their species can walk away from pretty much any fall.

[JellyPooga]

Not on an abstract level absent specific examples, no. Every rule in the game is at least somewhat a simplification to make gameplay possible, and also at least somewhat a depiction of what's actually happening in the game world. It's up to you, both where you think any given rule lies along that spectrum, and what you want to do with that determination once you make it.

But, for instance, say there's a monster that has over 120 hit points and can't fly. I don't think it makes sense to postulate that this species has a tradition of hurling themselves off mile-high cliffs because they've "figured out" that the maximum fall damage is 20d6. That, at least to me, is a rule that is way closer to the "simplified game mechanic" pole than the "this is what people in the world actually experience" pole.

That's just it, though. A culture of creatures that has the ability to survive any fall, regardless of how they achieve such a feat, could indeed develop a tradition of cliff diving. If they survive by having a ton of HP, it's not because they've "figured out the max fall damage" compared to their own HP, it's that they know that they're tough enough for it in exactly the same manner that Half-Orcs might be willing to take more risks than your average humanoid because they know they're able to fight on when others fall, not because they're metagaming their knowledge of Relentless Endurance.

There really isn't a spectrum here; just game mechanics and in-character phenomena. If the game mechanics tell us something occurs, then that occurence is part and parcel of the in-game world and should be appreciated as that in-game part as much as it is a mechanic. The only place this really breaks down is when it comes to forcibly abstracted things like turn-order in combat, CR, XP and Levels. There really are very few game-only conceits that have little to no bearing on in-character aspects.

[PhantomSoul]

I bet you could come up with so many real world examples of people accepting all sorts of acute or lingering pain, as well as short- and long-term ill effects for something as trivial as convenience, that you'll accept that your undeniably true statement isn't much of an argument.

I myself gave an example context where you could get evidence without actively wanting to be in pain (inferring from people avoiding a perceived-worse threat, maybe added to accidental falls; with the caveat that HP are themselves an abstraction anyway).


EDIT:

That's just it, though. A culture of creatures that has the ability to survive any fall, regardless of how they achieve such a feat, could indeed develop a tradition of cliff diving. If they survive by having a ton of HP, it's not because they've "figured out the max fall damage" compared to their own HP, it's that they know that they're tough enough for it in exactly the same manner that Half-Orcs might be willing to take more risks than your average humanoid because they know they're able to fight on when others fall, not because they're metagaming their knowledge of Relentless Endurance.

Exactly; if the abstractions represent anything and/or the mechanics are close enough to generating the actual in-world outcomes, then it could shape worldviews or traditions in interesting ways (even if they don't perceive it the same way as how we interpret the mechanics!)

[meandean]

While I think it would be bad if they "figured out" underlying game mechanics, I am failing to wrap my head around why the issue would be at all related to what's "fair", if a bunch of monsters knew that relatively healthy members of their species can walk away from pretty much any fall."Fair" is likely the wrong word, but I was trying to moderate my tone. I probably meant something more like "illogical" or "immersion-breaking", but those words feel more pointed. Not how I'd run it, in any event :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

Lances are not Heavy, but instead Special. Thus they don't grant disadvantage on attacks unless they're within five feet. Front row spears, back row lances, wall of pointy death.

Do kobolds also frolic in the sunlight, because they've also figured out that Pack Tactics means that doesn't matter either? Only after they put on sun screen. :smallcool:

[Reach Weapon]

I myself gave an example context where you could get evidence without actively wanting to be in pain (inferring from people avoiding a perceived-worse threat, maybe added to accidental falls; with the caveat that HP are themselves an abstraction anyway).

What I was trying to get at was how common it is for the calculations to still work out with much lower values. I should have worded it better.


"Fair" is likely the wrong word, but I was trying to moderate my tone. I probably meant something more like "illogical" or "immersion-breaking", but those words feel more pointed. Not how I'd run it, in any event :smallsmile:

Yeah, words like "illogical" and "immersion-breaking" are often interpreted as demands or cudgels. I might prefer something like "insufficiently justified" as that is more obviously a prompt towards dialogue and world building.

[Quixotic1]

I think this is too meta. The kobolds don't know that they have "advantage due to Pack Tactics", or that "advantage cancels out disadvantage."I disagree with this with every fiber of my DM-being.
Rules exist to represent/simulate real-world phenomenon. System mechanics aren't the means to an end in a separate vacuum; they are the method by which we tell these stories.

As said above, the kobolds may not know about the rule called "Advantage", with a capital "A", but they certainly know when they have an advantage in a fight.

Furthermore--and I know it's not a popular opinion--meta-gaming is not something worth avoiding. "The Angry DM" has some absolutely phenomenal articles on the subject and many more.

But anyway, to address the OP: I'm not sure what your goal is. To change things just for the sake of change? Are you getting bored with the encounters you're running?
At the surface, I'd say just give whoever you want whatever weapon you want. Whatever feels right.
Beyond that, there are some deeper issues we could get into, if we wanted.

(Aside: why is a trident such an odd weapon, in everyone's mind? Did I miss something?)

[CapnWildefyr]

Front row spears, back row lances, wall of pointy death.


FWIW why not just spears, spears, and more spears? When you pack in closely, it's the same effect, the ones in the front just hold the spear differently. All spears = don't have specialized positions in the rank or file, easier to replace fighters with the next rank back. (and less work for the DM!) Wall of pointy death, easier spare part replacement. :smallwink:

To the OP: I mix up the weapons all the time, I just keep it the same damage die because it's easier that way and keeps the monster in the same threat "zone." What I try to do is to avoid "anachronistic" weapons, based on my personal concept of the culture involved. I don't think like in the movies, where everything carries expensive chunks of steel around because it looks cool on film. For example: I wouldn't give kobalds real long or fancy polearms, or certainly not a lot of them. They live in winding, tiny tunnels. Orcs I might supply with more of the longer stuff. Rich/successfully raiding orcs would have more of the expensive stuff, poorer/less successful orcs would have less. Hill giants might be able to use all kinds of weapons, but they're too stupid to make giant-sized halberds so they stick with simple heavy stuff, or maybe just shiny. Hobgoblins to me are crafty and well organized, so they'll make and use polearms, pikes, ranseurs, etc, rather than simply use a few that got randomly captured. Working it like this gives you the ability to have anomalies -- like normally I have goblins use junky stuff, so the players can wonder why did this group have something else?

[quinron]

FWIW why not just spears, spears, and more spears? When you pack in closely, it's the same effect, the ones in the front just hold the spear differently. All spears = don't have specialized positions in the rank or file, easier to replace fighters with the next rank back. (and less work for the DM!) Wall of pointy death, easier spare part replacement. :smallwink:

To the OP: I mix up the weapons all the time, I just keep it the same damage die because it's easier that way and keeps the monster in the same threat "zone." What I try to do is to avoid "anachronistic" weapons, based on my personal concept of the culture involved. I don't think like in the movies, where everything carries expensive chunks of steel around because it looks cool on film. For example: I wouldn't give kobalds real long or fancy polearms, or certainly not a lot of them. They live in winding, tiny tunnels. Orcs I might supply with more of the longer stuff. Rich/successfully raiding orcs would have more of the expensive stuff, poorer/less successful orcs would have less. Hill giants might be able to use all kinds of weapons, but they're too stupid to make giant-sized halberds so they stick with simple heavy stuff, or maybe just shiny. Hobgoblins to me are crafty and well organized, so they'll make and use polearms, pikes, ranseurs, etc, rather than simply use a few that got randomly captured. Working it like this gives you the ability to have anomalies -- like normally I have goblins use junky stuff, so the players can wonder why did this group have something else?

This is 100% how I play goblins, with their bonus-action disengagement - if they're not sneaking around and sniping, they're taking lunging swings and then ducking behind the shield row.