No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Glad to see I'm not alone. I just want to clarify that I was talking about maneuvers in 5e, a feature of the Battlemaster, a Fighter subclass
    Last edited by Master Aquatosic; 02-22-2021, 10:25 AM.

    A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"


    • Yeah, Battlemaster taps into what I liked from To9S and 4th edition but they don't really have enough options or oomph to keep me interested. It just ends up feeling more like the start of something rather than the final product. But like, I understand word count, and they can't make it -too- cool and interesting to the point the other options seem really bad in comparison.


      • Originally posted by Master Aquatosic View Post
        I really don't want to just go on this thread and whine, but ... am I the only one who feels like all the 5e weapons just feel the same? Sure, they roll different dice, but it's still ... just roll to hit, roll for damage. The lance is a nice start, as are the few tags I've seen, but I don't always want to play a traditional jouster. I don't actually remember how many weapons in 3.5e actually played differently from each other, but I know I picked weapons that actually felt unique in my game (even the character is underpowered). And again, it's not all bad. I am so thankful that weapon size modifiers are gone and battlemaster maneuvers can be flavored pretty well for some of the more out-there weapons I like. I also understand that special weapon abilities could accidentally create some combo that makes some weapon choices just straight up better than the standards, but I swear that's not why I want them. But it never feels like I have enough superiority dice to really be a creative non-magical fighter.

        I dunno, I there any way to homebrew this malaise away?
        This is true, but there was never an edition of D&D where it wasn't true. It was only ever an illusion of choice, with trap options aplenty. 4E probably got closest to making weapons feel different, due to powers and feats tied to them.


        • My interpretation of 5e is that it, as an edition, had different design goals than previous ones. It wanted to specifically avoid the problem that others have mentioned: certain equipment choices being false choices.

          Yes, all the weapons work more or less the same. But that also means there's nothing punishing you for choosing certain weapon choices over others. (I mean, I say that, but I still have gripes, like the idea that daggers are Finesse weapons but sickles aren't, just to name one example). Helmets don't give you any benefits, but you also aren't punished for going without. Same with all shields giving a flat +2 AC, regardless of size, shape, or material.

          It's less min-maxable than previous editions. But that's also what I like about it. You don't need to worry as much about optimization, and can thus focus on interpreting the base mechanics however you like as a function of character and narrative. You have fewer choices, but are, ironically, more free.

          That said, I do have a few of my own house rules. Like if you have martial weapons proficiency, wielding a Spear does the next die up in damage (making it on par with the longsword).

          Or my rule about letting a person deal the same damage as normal for a given weapon, but to deal it in whatever damage type is logical for its form. Daggers, for instance, should be able to do both piercing and slashing damage. And using half-swording techniques, a longsword or greatsword should be able to deal slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage.

          For that matter, the most obvious houserule comes from weapons that are actually combinations of multiple types, like a battleaxe that has either a spike (warpick) or a blunt head (warhammer) on the reverse side. It's worth remembering that the books openly admit that the weapons listed in the PHB are merely the most common, and gaming groups should feel free to create their own.

          My personal philosophy about homebrew rules is that they should reuse existing mechanics or keep things simple where possible. Sub-systems create mechanics bloat that increases the cognitive load on players and DMs alike, and don't necessarily make the game any better or more fun to run. Often, people homebrew systems simply because they enjoy the intellectual challenge, not so much because it would be better to play. (For a non-D&D example of this in action, see Warhammer 40K's rules from 3rd to 7th edition). The reason I like 5e is that it understands that simplicity of rules is, itself, a positive quality.

          (Plus, I'm getting older, and have less patience for memorizing complex mechanics. I bounced right off of GURPS because, even in its supposedly stripped down version, it's still complex in ways I don't think add enough to justify them. Like a difference between swinging versus thrusting attacks, or turns measured in 1 second increments).


          • Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
            My interpretation of 5e is that it, as an edition, had different design goals than previous ones. It wanted to specifically avoid the problem that others have mentioned: certain equipment choices being false choices.
            And it failed, because about a half of the equipment table is false choices. Really, the weapons table could consist of less than 10 entries and the armor table of 3-4 and they'd contain the same amount of information.


            • I mean if they really wanted to go rules-lite they could have just made general weapon rules in order to get rid of individual weapon types entirely, for example:

              Choose whether the weapon deals Blunt, Piercing or Slashing damage. Small one handed weapons do 1d4 and the wielder can choose to substitute Dexterity for Strength. Medium one handed weapons do 1d6 damage. Large two handed weapon do 1d10 damage. If a character has Martial Proficiency, increase the size of the dice for the weapon by one (1d4 -> 1d6, 1d6 ->1d8, 1d10 -> 1d12).

              If a character chooses to use a one handed weapon in two hands, increase the damage die by one. Note that large two handed weapons, which can only be used with two hands, already have this damage bonus automatically calculated into them. So a character without martial proficiency using a a spear would normally do 1d6 damage, if using it two handed they would do 1d8 damage. A character with martial proficiency using a spear would normally do 1d8 damage so using it with two hands would increase the damage to 1d10.
              You could do something somewhat similar for other weapons (short bows 1d6, and long bows 1d8, and then crossbows 1d8, and heavy crossbows 1d10 but you can only make 1 attack with them per turn). Then you'd have a few special rules for whips/chains/nets or other weapons that don't fall neatly into those base rules.

              You could probably have the entire weapon system take up two or even just one page.