You can reskin any weapon (as long as your table agrees). Ie - I reskinned darts to be throwing stars. Nothing game changing that will break the it.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for a reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
You can reskin any weapon (as long as your table agrees). Ie - I reskinned darts to be throwing stars. Nothing game changing that will break the it.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
There always seems to be this assumption that when something isn't there, it is for some sort of well thought out play balance reason, even when no such reason is actually ever stated anywhere. That always has seemed unlikely to me...
If you are ok with tweaking turning a short-sword into an Eskrima or rapier into a Sakabato or a club into a cane or walking stick is totally doable for the most part. (Not sure how to do it on beyond.) There are entire martial arts dedicated to agile stick fighting in real life, so there is precedent out the wazzoo.
They may not be present in 5E, but don't let that stop you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
You can reskin any weapon (as long as your table agrees). Ie - I reskinned darts to be throwing stars. Nothing game changing that will break the it.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
There always seems to be this assumption that when something isn't there, it is for some sort of well thought out play balance reason, even when no such reason is actually ever stated anywhere. That always has seemed unlikely to me...
I mean, it is for a reason, but that reason is "simplifying the weapon list". D&D has always had highly abstracted combat, so the subtle real-world distinctions between weapons don't have any room to exist. (Yes, 1e had the tables of weapon adjustments against armor. There's a reason most everybody ignored it.)
You can reskin any weapon (as long as your table agrees). Ie - I reskinned darts to be throwing stars. Nothing game changing that will break the it.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
There always seems to be this assumption that when something isn't there, it is for some sort of well thought out play balance reason, even when no such reason is actually ever stated anywhere. That always has seemed unlikely to me...
I mean, it is for a reason, but that reason is "simplifying the weapon list". D&D has always had highly abstracted combat, so the subtle real-world distinctions between weapons don't have any room to exist. (Yes, 1e had the tables of weapon adjustments against armor. There's a reason most everybody ignored it.)
How is it easier to assume they thought of every possible thing and carefully selected down to the list they ended up with than to assume they started with the ideas they considered core and built up from there until they decided they had enough to make a viable, interesting game?
And 1e's tables were mostly by weapon type rather than specific weapon vs specific armor. Rolemaster did go there, though. But how does the existence or lack thereof of a finesse bludgeoning weapon equate, there, since not all slashing or piercing weapons are finesse and no one complains about that?
I would be 100% on board with a d4 Light Finesse bludgeoning weapon. Sap / Blackjack, Escrima Stick, Tonfa, whatever you need to call it would work for me.
You can reskin any weapon (as long as your table agrees). Ie - I reskinned darts to be throwing stars. Nothing game changing that will break the it.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
There always seems to be this assumption that when something isn't there, it is for some sort of well thought out play balance reason, even when no such reason is actually ever stated anywhere. That always has seemed unlikely to me...
I mean, it is for a reason, but that reason is "simplifying the weapon list". D&D has always had highly abstracted combat, so the subtle real-world distinctions between weapons don't have any room to exist. (Yes, 1e had the tables of weapon adjustments against armor. There's a reason most everybody ignored it.)
I'm all for core having a simple weapon list, but adding to that list is what splat is for. I don't want a return to the weapons bloat of 3e by any means, but there's certainly some clear gaps in the current roster - finesse bludgeoning being an easy one to spot.
"If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon"
And, "The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule."
Seeing as an improvised weapon does not have the finesse property, a melee attack with a ranged weapon would use strength.
"If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon"
And, "The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule."
Seeing as an improvised weapon does not have the finesse property, a melee attack with a ranged weapon would use strength.
And I've just realised that this also means that you can't make a melee Sneak Attack with a Sling for the same reason; it stops being considered as a ranged weapon... Shame! 🫤
Can someone explain how a finesse classified weapon actually can logically use bludgeoning?
Stepping away form DND rules for a moment.
Isn't bludgeoning inherently only applied to the force/strength behind the hit? How does dexterity actually useful with bludgeoning? Logically it seems dexterity can be useful when the weapon itself does the damage (sharp blade/point).
What is there in an armory and/or garage/etc. that needs the dexterity of the user and yet does the effect of bludgeoning. Hammers/bricks/fists/etc. all do damage based on the strength of the user. Blade/points can do damage with no additional strength needed. Guns may or may not be a bludgeon type of weapon, but it is classed as using dexterity so no sense using that.
"If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon"
And, "The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule."
Seeing as an improvised weapon does not have the finesse property, a melee attack with a ranged weapon would use strength.
And I've just realised that this also means that you can't make a melee Sneak Attack with a Sling for the same reason; it stops being considered as a ranged weapon... Shame! 🫤
If you're talking about making a melee attack with a sling, then yes, it uses Strength and is an Improvised Weapon. Ranged weapons do not "stop being considered ranged weapons" if you make a melee attack with them, though. It's still a ranged weapon that you're making a melee attack with.
But in the comment you were replying to, I was not talking about making a melee attack with a sling, so I don't think that's really relevant.
Can someone explain how a finesse classified weapon actually can logically use bludgeoning?
Stepping away form DND rules for a moment.
Isn't bludgeoning inherently only applied to the force/strength behind the hit? How does dexterity actually useful with bludgeoning? Logically it seems dexterity can be useful when the weapon itself does the damage (sharp blade/point).
What is there in an armory and/or garage/etc. that needs the dexterity of the user and yet does the effect of bludgeoning. Hammers/bricks/fists/etc. all do damage based on the strength of the user. Blade/points can do damage with no additional strength needed. Guns may or may not be a bludgeon type of weapon, but it is classed as using dexterity so no sense using that.
Ever seen a Kali fighter using Eskrima? Ever seen a shoalin monk using a staff? They are fast, agile and blunt. hells, even a properly trained person using a tonfa/nightstick? They would do bludgeoning because they are sticks, but just because they are sticks, that doesn't mean they aren't fearsome and precise.
even a Sai, which a lot of people think of as a piercing weapon have more moves using the blunt parts to break bones than they have for thrusts. (at least the way i was trained with them. No i am not very good.) There are a lot of agile weapons that are blunt.
If you want to stay Europe, then Canne de combat, Bartitsu, Bataireacht, and the plain Quarterstaff all take agility to use. (Some of those are victorian era, but the DMG has laser guns so lets not get caught up on historical accuracy or anything)
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Can someone explain how a finesse classified weapon actually can logically use bludgeoning?
Stepping away form DND rules for a moment.
Isn't bludgeoning inherently only applied to the force/strength behind the hit? How does dexterity actually useful with bludgeoning? Logically it seems dexterity can be useful when the weapon itself does the damage (sharp blade/point).
What is there in an armory and/or garage/etc. that needs the dexterity of the user and yet does the effect of bludgeoning. Hammers/bricks/fists/etc. all do damage based on the strength of the user. Blade/points can do damage with no additional strength needed. Guns may or may not be a bludgeon type of weapon, but it is classed as using dexterity so no sense using that.
In my own words, this is a failure of D&D's general design espically in the modern era. Dexterity is really the stat for all melee weapons in the real world as you have to use technique and control more than raw physical power to use a melee weapon, ironically Bows, and ranged weapons really require greater physical strength.
But, when looking at D&D as a game not based in Reality, there are several weapons which were rogue weapons with the blugeoning trait. These weapons have not made it into 5e or 5.5e but can be found in every edition in the past, they can also be found in other systems based on D&D, and in 3rd party matierial even here on D&D beyond. Only offical D&D 5e has skipped the list of finnesse blugeoning. BTW the sap/blackjack which is a core ability of World of Warcraft Rogues BTW is the classic sneak attack blugeoning weapon, designed to lay out weak enemies from stealth silently. As a DM if a player wanted one, I would allow it. as it's as easy as a bar of soap, sand, buckshot, or gravel in a sock or small bag.
Nunchucks are the other classic, but as it's more a Monk weapon than a rogue weapon it gets tricky as Monks have their own way to do things.
Dexterous Attacks. You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier for the attack and damage rolls of your Unarmed Strikes and Monk weapons. In addition, when you use the Grapple or Shove option of your Unarmed Strike, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to determine the save DC.
Making it unnessessay to make Nunchucks to have the Finesse trait. You can use a quaterstaff and call them nunchucks, as mechanically it would be the same for a Monk. But I do feel a rogue should have the option to use them.
Next two others that have failed to show in D&D in the 5e/5.5e era:
Tonfa - beat stick, used by monks and cops, ironically used as a blugeoning weapon and as a shield.
Just want to smile at the mention of Meteor Hammers. A weapon I have homebrewed into the game... as I find them to be epic. Of corse my Homebrew ones were OP because I made them Meteor Hammers of Meteor casting.
Can someone explain how a finesse classified weapon actually can logically use bludgeoning?
Stepping away form DND rules for a moment.
Isn't bludgeoning inherently only applied to the force/strength behind the hit? How does dexterity actually useful with bludgeoning? Logically it seems dexterity can be useful when the weapon itself does the damage (sharp blade/point).
What is there in an armory and/or garage/etc. that needs the dexterity of the user and yet does the effect of bludgeoning. Hammers/bricks/fists/etc. all do damage based on the strength of the user. Blade/points can do damage with no additional strength needed. Guns may or may not be a bludgeon type of weapon, but it is classed as using dexterity so no sense using that.
In my own words, this is a failure of D&D's general design espically in the modern era. Dexterity is really the stat for all melee weapons in the real world as you have to use technique and control more than raw physical power to use a melee weapon, ironically Bows, and ranged weapons really require greater physical strength.
But, when looking at D&D as a game not based in Reality, there are several weapons which were rogue weapons with the blugeoning trait. These weapons have not made it into 5e or 5.5e but can be found in every edition in the past, they can also be found in other systems based on D&D, and in 3rd party matierial even here on D&D beyond. Only offical D&D 5e has skipped the list of finnesse blugeoning. BTW the sap/blackjack which is a core ability of World of Warcraft Rogues BTW is the classic sneak attack blugeoning weapon, designed to lay out weak enemies from stealth silently. As a DM if a player wanted one, I would allow it. as it's as easy as a bar of soap, sand, buckshot, or gravel in a sock or small bag.
Nunchucks are the other classic, but as it's more a Monk weapon than a rogue weapon it gets tricky as Monks have their own way to do things.
I'm not sure its a failure on its design there at least. I think you are overly narrowing the definition of strength, and overly broadening the definition of dexterity. Strength should be more looked at as an explosive action stat. You want to deliver the most force possible to a certain point that is strength, and yeah that requires skill and muscle control to guide weapons which strength covers. Sure if you make dex cover that as well as make strength the me strong, me lift heavy objects, me move slowly stat it wont work well for fighting.
The failure on design is the requirement to use finesse weapons to sneak attack. They made sneak attack work in a overly narrow theme when just allowing it on all non spell attacks would cover the balance fine as to get a better weapon than what a rogue uses would require multi classing or feats. Let the rogue sneak up behind someone and snap their neck with their bare hands. Let them rock someone with a quarterstaff and if they MC to fighter or something let them use a great sword, its only a d6. Let rogues encompass a wider vision of what being a rogue is. in the current rules. I mean god its not like they will be anywhere close to the same power as a full caster if you let them MX to get one whole extra d6 and maybe after a feat a bit more damage.
...I think you are overly narrowing the definition of strength, and overly broadening the definition of dexterity. Strength should be more looked at as an explosive action stat. ...
You are adding words to the design that are not there, and never have been.
5.5e
ABILITY SCORE MEASURES...
Strength Physical might
Dexterity Agility, reflexes, and balance
Constitution Health and stamina
Intelligence Reasoning and memory
Wisdom Perceptiveness and mental fortitude
Charisma Confidence, poise, and charm
5e
Six abilities provide a quick description of every creature’s physical and mental characteristics:
Strength, measuring physical power
Dexterity, measuring agility
Constitution, measuring endurance
Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory
Wisdom, measuring perception and insight
Charisma, measuring force of personality
not putting 4e because no access to online books, I own them but don't want to hand type the words.
3.5e
Strength (Str)
Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.
You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
Melee attack rolls.
Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).
I think you get the point, Strength is muscle power. Not a speed stat, just muscles.
Feel free to believe that, its your table so have at it. But reading what you posted I think it means something different from what you think it means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't like terms such as "reskinning" and "flavor". I think things are there for a reason to be used (or not). It sounds too video gamey. But nunchuckus did exist before, and they were taken away again for a reason. There's nothing to stop you from tying to sticks together for improvised weapon damage. imo of course.
There always seems to be this assumption that when something isn't there, it is for some sort of well thought out play balance reason, even when no such reason is actually ever stated anywhere. That always has seemed unlikely to me...
Just my opinion, though.
If you are ok with tweaking turning a short-sword into an Eskrima or rapier into a Sakabato or a club into a cane or walking stick is totally doable for the most part. (Not sure how to do it on beyond.) There are entire martial arts dedicated to agile stick fighting in real life, so there is precedent out the wazzoo.
They may not be present in 5E, but don't let that stop you.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I mean, it is for a reason, but that reason is "simplifying the weapon list". D&D has always had highly abstracted combat, so the subtle real-world distinctions between weapons don't have any room to exist. (Yes, 1e had the tables of weapon adjustments against armor. There's a reason most everybody ignored it.)
How is it easier to assume they thought of every possible thing and carefully selected down to the list they ended up with than to assume they started with the ideas they considered core and built up from there until they decided they had enough to make a viable, interesting game?
And 1e's tables were mostly by weapon type rather than specific weapon vs specific armor. Rolemaster did go there, though. But how does the existence or lack thereof of a finesse bludgeoning weapon equate, there, since not all slashing or piercing weapons are finesse and no one complains about that?
I would be 100% on board with a d4 Light Finesse bludgeoning weapon. Sap / Blackjack, Escrima Stick, Tonfa, whatever you need to call it would work for me.
I'm all for core having a simple weapon list, but adding to that list is what splat is for. I don't want a return to the weapons bloat of 3e by any means, but there's certainly some clear gaps in the current roster - finesse bludgeoning being an easy one to spot.
I don't think that's correct. The PHB says:
"If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon"
And, "The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule."
Seeing as an improvised weapon does not have the finesse property, a melee attack with a ranged weapon would use strength.
And I've just realised that this also means that you can't make a melee Sneak Attack with a Sling for the same reason; it stops being considered as a ranged weapon... Shame! 🫤
Can someone explain how a finesse classified weapon actually can logically use bludgeoning?
Stepping away form DND rules for a moment.
Isn't bludgeoning inherently only applied to the force/strength behind the hit? How does dexterity actually useful with bludgeoning? Logically it seems dexterity can be useful when the weapon itself does the damage (sharp blade/point).
What is there in an armory and/or garage/etc. that needs the dexterity of the user and yet does the effect of bludgeoning. Hammers/bricks/fists/etc. all do damage based on the strength of the user. Blade/points can do damage with no additional strength needed. Guns may or may not be a bludgeon type of weapon, but it is classed as using dexterity so no sense using that.
A Sap could for example be finesse weapon dealing bludgeoning weapon relying on precision of blows.
Thank you. Is there any others besides this?
If you're talking about making a melee attack with a sling, then yes, it uses Strength and is an Improvised Weapon. Ranged weapons do not "stop being considered ranged weapons" if you make a melee attack with them, though. It's still a ranged weapon that you're making a melee attack with.
But in the comment you were replying to, I was not talking about making a melee attack with a sling, so I don't think that's really relevant.
pronouns: he/she/they
Ever seen a Kali fighter using Eskrima? Ever seen a shoalin monk using a staff? They are fast, agile and blunt. hells, even a properly trained person using a tonfa/nightstick?
They would do bludgeoning because they are sticks, but just because they are sticks, that doesn't mean they aren't fearsome and precise.
even a Sai, which a lot of people think of as a piercing weapon have more moves using the blunt parts to break bones than they have for thrusts. (at least the way i was trained with them. No i am not very good.) There are a lot of agile weapons that are blunt.
If you want to stay Europe, then Canne de combat, Bartitsu, Bataireacht, and the plain Quarterstaff all take agility to use.
(Some of those are victorian era, but the DMG has laser guns so lets not get caught up on historical accuracy or anything)
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
A boken could be a wooden club martial art practice finesse weapon dealing bludgeoning damage.
A sansetsukon would also qualify.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Nunchaku
Meteor hammer
I'll let Bruce Lee explain this. See Yourtube short: https://youtube.com/shorts/yW3gybMTq2k?si=gghxkjHWMfuoR-tZ
In my own words, this is a failure of D&D's general design espically in the modern era. Dexterity is really the stat for all melee weapons in the real world as you have to use technique and control more than raw physical power to use a melee weapon, ironically Bows, and ranged weapons really require greater physical strength.
Good video on this: https://youtu.be/9GsQc5lWgDM?si=4QLiyUFt9il68Wm_
But, when looking at D&D as a game not based in Reality, there are several weapons which were rogue weapons with the blugeoning trait. These weapons have not made it into 5e or 5.5e but can be found in every edition in the past, they can also be found in other systems based on D&D, and in 3rd party matierial even here on D&D beyond. Only offical D&D 5e has skipped the list of finnesse blugeoning. BTW the sap/blackjack which is a core ability of World of Warcraft Rogues BTW is the classic sneak attack blugeoning weapon, designed to lay out weak enemies from stealth silently. As a DM if a player wanted one, I would allow it. as it's as easy as a bar of soap, sand, buckshot, or gravel in a sock or small bag.
Nunchucks are the other classic, but as it's more a Monk weapon than a rogue weapon it gets tricky as Monks have their own way to do things.
Making it unnessessay to make Nunchucks to have the Finesse trait. You can use a quaterstaff and call them nunchucks, as mechanically it would be the same for a Monk. But I do feel a rogue should have the option to use them.
Next two others that have failed to show in D&D in the 5e/5.5e era:
Tonfa - beat stick, used by monks and cops, ironically used as a blugeoning weapon and as a shield.
Sai - Blunt Daggers see: https://youtu.be/V7d_6FPx0OQ?si=lAZcaMiaw06XmpyC
note: sai are really popular with comic and mange characters.
edit: added reaction
Just want to smile at the mention of Meteor Hammers. A weapon I have homebrewed into the game... as I find them to be epic. Of corse my Homebrew ones were OP because I made them Meteor Hammers of Meteor casting.
I should make a more reasonable version.
But also, can someone give love to the urumi (wip sword) https://youtu.be/RnihCC087yg?si=yw3KPbu2C5O_YJvp
I'm not sure its a failure on its design there at least. I think you are overly narrowing the definition of strength, and overly broadening the definition of dexterity. Strength should be more looked at as an explosive action stat. You want to deliver the most force possible to a certain point that is strength, and yeah that requires skill and muscle control to guide weapons which strength covers. Sure if you make dex cover that as well as make strength the me strong, me lift heavy objects, me move slowly stat it wont work well for fighting.
The failure on design is the requirement to use finesse weapons to sneak attack. They made sneak attack work in a overly narrow theme when just allowing it on all non spell attacks would cover the balance fine as to get a better weapon than what a rogue uses would require multi classing or feats. Let the rogue sneak up behind someone and snap their neck with their bare hands. Let them rock someone with a quarterstaff and if they MC to fighter or something let them use a great sword, its only a d6. Let rogues encompass a wider vision of what being a rogue is. in the current rules. I mean god its not like they will be anywhere close to the same power as a full caster if you let them MX to get one whole extra d6 and maybe after a feat a bit more damage.
You are adding words to the design that are not there, and never have been.
5.5e
ABILITY SCORE MEASURES...
5e
Six abilities provide a quick description of every creature’s physical and mental characteristics:
not putting 4e because no access to online books, I own them but don't want to hand type the words.
3.5e
Strength (Str)
Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.
You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
Melee attack rolls.
Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).
I think you get the point, Strength is muscle power. Not a speed stat, just muscles.
Feel free to believe that, its your table so have at it. But reading what you posted I think it means something different from what you think it means.