Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Garrotes should only be useable against creatures of your size or smaller.  Look at how thick the neck is on a horse or a cow- you're not going to successfully garrote it.

 
pretty much. I mean, a Dwarf generally isn't going to be able to choke out a Giant. but also...

Animals often do not have the ability to cut off the way people are -- not all carotid arteries actually run close enough to the surface and over a muscle to enable the cutting off of blood to the brain (which is the real killer part -- the choking is because it often interferes with the trachea). You can garrote someone without choking them.

Oh, and that reminds me, if there are choking/coughing conditional effects, those will be in effect during the suffocation and at least one round after.

I will also point out that the garroted person gets to make an effort to free themselves each round (and it takes several rounds to choke someone out even by regular rules), whereas the person doing the garroting may not have a free hand, depending on the kind of garrote (a twist garrote might offer a free hand, but it is going to be occupied mostly trying to limit hazards whereas a choke garrote [the traditional line between two hands] is not going to allow for a free hand.)

(and, keeping in mind that if a player can do it, a monster can do it, that will ease worries on the part of players about the murderous Tiny being throttling a PC).

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Finesse weapons which aren't Light.

I don't think that is a hole - I think that is a deliberate choice. To me, finesse requires a light weapon, something that can be used with precision and control.

I also don't believe there should be any bludgeoning finesse weapons because "blunt instrument" and "finesse" are opposites (though I might make an exception for a wand-like weapon, for example an escrima stick).

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Garrotes should only be useable against creatures of your size or smaller.  Look at how thick the neck is on a horse or a cow- you're not going to successfully garrote it.

If you're strong enough to grapple a horse or a cow (fairly easy in 5e, not so easy in reality) and have a sufficiently long and strong wire, you could do it.

 Eh, garroting works because it takes advantage of specifics of the human neck.  A cow has a neck that's considerably thicker and more muscular, and has much thicker skin- it's not a matter of strength, that's just not an effective means of killing a cow.  By D&D terms, a garrote is not really a weapon, it's more of a special device that allows you to deliver a special attack to a target that's unaware or restrained.

Quote from Greenstone_Walker >>

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Finesse weapons which aren't Light.

I don't think that is a hole - I think that is a deliberate choice. To me, finesse requires a light weapon, something that can be used with precision and control.

I also don't believe there should be any bludgeoning finesse weapons because "blunt instrument" and "finesse" are opposites (though I might make an exception for a wand-like weapon, for example an escrima stick).

 
Ahem...

M would like a word. She wants to introduce you to a friend of hers, so you can inform him of this difference, because he seems to not understand it.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Eh, garroting works because it takes advantage of specifics of the human neck.

Not really. Fundamentally, a garotte is just strangulation with a loop of wire, and if you have a loop of wire strong enough to hold a cow, it is perfectly capable of strangling the cow.

I would probably handle this with

Choking: if you are grappling a foe, you may make an attempt to choke them. Make an unarmed attack (or an appropriate natural weapon; many animals can choke with a bite); on a hit, do normal damage, and the victim must make a Constitution save against your Strength save DC or be unable to speak or breathe until it breaks the grapple or you fail to repeat this attack on your turn. If you have an appropriate flexible tool, such as a rope, whip, or garotte, you may use that instead of an unarmed attack; damage is 1d4+Strength for a rope or whip, 1d8+Strength for a wire garotte.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Eh, garroting works because it takes advantage of specifics of the human neck.

Not really. Fundamentally, a garotte is just strangulation with a loop of wire, and if you have a loop of wire strong enough to hold a cow, it is perfectly capable of strangling the cow.

Humans don't really have the leverage necessary to exert that much force on the cow is the problem.

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Whilst making the Kopesh I stumbled upon a niche in the weapon system which has gone unfilled - Finesse weapons which aren't Light.

 

 Uhhh.... *coughs awkwardly*

You know, what the game could really use is a finesse weapon that deals bludgeoning damage.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

You know, what the game could really use is a finesse weapon that deals bludgeoning damage.

 That appears to be a philosophical belief that bludgeoning just isn't finesse. Otherwise that weapon would be the club.

D&D has a long history of discriminating against bludgeoning weapons.  I still remember how badly most of them stunk in 2E.

Let's see...

• Brass knuckles and other punch-boosting weapons
• Pole hammer!
• A long spear, doing what the Pike does now.  To me, a Pike implies an extremely long weapon. Maybe the Pike could be re-implemented as some kind of 15ft "super reach" weapon with some other drawback attached, like not being able to attack targets at 5ft.

Mechanically, I'd also like to see some more finesse options.

• Bludgeoning finesse weapons. Not every rogue needs to be a backstabber.
• More 1d8 damage finesse weapons besides the rapier. I hate hate hate that all dex builds that aren't dual-wielding get stuck with the exact same weapon every time.
• Two-handed finesse. All we have right now is the Double-Bladed Scimitar, but that's specific to Eberron, and even more specifically to pure-blooded elves taking a feat.

Punches are mostly a Monk thing, plus there's a Fighting Style, a feat, and a few upcoming subclasses for it as well. I've heard the new book also finally has basic +X handwraps for Monks, so they're covered.

Regarding the rapier, keep in mind that for roleplay/image purposes you can skin a weapon however you want within reason. If you want your DEX duelist to be wielding a katana or something, there's no reason you can't use that aesthetic.

Regarding the pike, anything particularly long would be more a weapon to be braced against cavalry charges rather than wielded in melee. Plus I think it would disrupt the game balance if a melee character standing in place could threaten 80 squares with a normal weapon.

The response to pretty much all those points can be boiled down to “they wanted to keep combat simple in 5e”. They tried multiple damage types on a weapon in prior editions, alongside more monsters that were outright resistant or immune to certain weapon damages. They made a deliberate decision to move away from that model in 5e, so I doubt they’re going to backtrack. As for bracing, that’s covered by the Sentinel feat and the Brace maneuver. Beyond that, you can’t really properly reflect the idea of setting a spear because D&D doesn’t model things like cavalry charges particularly well.

The differences between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing in 5e are so marginal they could probably just have been merged.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The differences between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing in 5e are so marginal they could probably just have been merged.

 
that did indeed get a chuckle.

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

And honestly, breaking charges is something that is done by whole armies, not individual adventurers. It is useful because you can have an entire line of soldiers brace (i.e. not moving) and facing one way ("facing" does not exist in 5E). They are completely undefended in the back or to the sides, but make up for this by being part of a freaking army!

How many times in your D&D life have you ever faced down a cavalry charge? This is something that is much better spelled out in a specific campaign that might include that than baked into the core rules.

Since I don't normally play a character, I can say that I have never faced a cavalry charge as a player.

I have as a DM, however, lol. Amazing what you can hire in some campaigns.

My Players have faced cavalry charges several times. Both heavy and light. In my defense, it wasn't because I set it up so they had to -- they are just that kind of group, lol.

I have a Crusade thing happening in my next campaign, and I fully expect them to decide at some point to head on over there and get involved in some damn fool fight.

incidentally, pretty sure this is facing rules in 5e: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#OptionalRuleFacing

I mean, could just be me imagining it, but hey you know...

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

How many times in your D&D life have you ever faced down a cavalry charge? This is something that is much better spelled out in a specific campaign that might include that than baked into the core rules.

A cavalry charge really isn't different in kind from any other case of being charged by large, fast moving creatures, which happens plenty in D&D. Even in real history, facing charging beasts was an issue -- that's why a boar spear has a crossbar to prevent the boar running up the spear and gutting the person holding it. The reason a pike is really long is because you want it to be longer than your opponent's lance.

Not sure if this has been said yet but Bolas should be added

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

How many times in your D&D life have you ever faced down a cavalry charge? This is something that is much better spelled out in a specific campaign that might include that than baked into the core rules.

A cavalry charge really isn't different in kind from any other case of being charged by large, fast moving creatures, which happens plenty in D&D. Even in real history, facing charging beasts was an issue -- that's why a boar spear has a crossbar to prevent the boar running up the spear and gutting the person holding it. The reason a pike is really long is because you want it to be longer than your opponent's lance.

 
Except the momentum of the charge is primarily a non-factor, outside of a few beast blocks. And D&D isn’t set up to accommodate a creature impaling itself during a charge.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

How many times in your D&D life have you ever faced down a cavalry charge? This is something that is much better spelled out in a specific campaign that might include that than baked into the core rules.

A cavalry charge really isn't different in kind from any other case of being charged by large, fast moving creatures, which happens plenty in D&D. Even in real history, facing charging beasts was an issue -- that's why a boar spear has a crossbar to prevent the boar running up the spear and gutting the person holding it. The reason a pike is really long is because you want it to be longer than your opponent's lance.

 
Except the momentum of the charge is primarily a non-factor, outside of a few beast blocks. And D&D isn’t set up to accommodate a creature impaling itself during a charge.

 
Eh, I would argue that the HP vs damage set up is already including such. 

But, I mean, it isn't hard to add a modifier for impaling, or increasing damage for it (extant monsters have it already).

I mean, if you are thinking "well, an impaled beast should be killed by such" and you are thinking of it in terms of "reality", well, then you also have to accept that a single sword thrust is likely to kill that same animal, so should all animals have fewer hit points, and so forth.

No, I think that in terms of the overall ethos, the simplest thing is an impaled creature has its speed stopped, and takes an incapacitated condition. not all that hard.