New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Draconi Redfir View Post
    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.)

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    KCMO metro area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomSoul View Post
    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."

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by jinjitsu View Post
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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.
    I apologise if I come across daft. I'm a bit like that. I also like a good argument, so please don't take offence if I'm somewhat...forthright.

    Please be aware; when it comes to 5ed D&D, I own Core (1st printing) and SCAG only. All my opinions and rulings are based solely on those, unless otherwise stated. I reserve the right of ignorance of errata or any other source.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2021

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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?
    Whatever else may be in their orders, a picket's ultimate responsibility is to die noisily.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Reach Weapon View Post
    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.
    Last edited by meandean; 2021-07-22 at 10:39 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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!)

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2021

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomSoul View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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.
    Whatever else may be in their orders, a picket's ultimate responsibility is to die noisily.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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.
    I apologise if I come across daft. I'm a bit like that. I also like a good argument, so please don't take offence if I'm somewhat...forthright.

    Please be aware; when it comes to 5ed D&D, I own Core (1st printing) and SCAG only. All my opinions and rulings are based solely on those, unless otherwise stated. I reserve the right of ignorance of errata or any other source.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Reach Weapon View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by JellyPooga View Post
    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!)
    Last edited by PhantomSoul; 2021-07-22 at 01:35 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Reach Weapon View Post
    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

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Telwar View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2021

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomSoul View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    "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
    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.
    Whatever else may be in their orders, a picket's ultimate responsibility is to die noisily.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2021

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by meandean View Post
    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?)

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Delawhere?

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    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.

    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?

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    KCMO metro area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: humanoid weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by CapnWildefyr View Post
    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.

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •