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! 🫤
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! 🫤