Yeah, you'll have to change Vicious to something else... Vicious is already a weapon type in D&D and denotes a weapon that deals additional damage on a critical hit.
Mog_Dracov suggested macerating, which we could use.
If your inspiration for the Kanabo is the Tie Bian from the fight scene in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon why rename it with a Japanese name? It was built to break armor and weapons, both.
I'll change that. I didn't know the name of the weapon when I watched the movie, so I googled it and looked at pictures until I found something similar.
I don't get why you say that the weapon chart is overwhelming to new players and then immediately propose making things more complicated.
Also, two specific points- the halberd did not have a bludgeoning piece on it, it had an axe head with a hook or spike set opposite, and another spike mounted on top. The only way to bludgeon someone with it would have been to bash them with the shaft, which Pole Arm Master already lets you do. You're probably thinking of the bec de corbin or the Lucerne hammer. Second and Third Editions had two many polearms and nobody ever bothered with 99% of them. No need to bring that back.
Second point: just call a kanabo a reskin of the maul and be done with it. No need to make the thing complicated, especially with the way you've gone.
The reason why I wanted to make things more complicated is that currently, I feel like the difference between weapons is small. A flail and a mace are very different weapons, but function similarly in D&D.
I have been corrected on the halberd, and will remove the bludgeoning aspect of it.
The point of this post is the propose different rules for different weapons, so just calling something a reskin would be anathema to the whole idea.
I don't get why you say that the weapon chart is overwhelming to new players and then immediately propose making things more complicated.
Also, two specific points- the halberd did not have a bludgeoning piece on it, it had an axe head with a hook or spike set opposite, and another spike mounted on top. The only way to bludgeon someone with it would have been to bash them with the shaft, which Pole Arm Master already lets you do. You're probably thinking of the bec de corbin or the Lucerne hammer. Second and Third Editions had two many polearms and nobody ever bothered with 99% of them. No need to bring that back.
Second point: just call a kanabo a reskin of the maul and be done with it. No need to make the thing complicated, especially with the way you've gone.
I agree with this. All the proposed weapons seem like really bad ideas to me.
Thanks for the feedback. (I am not saying this sarcastically. I care about your opinion.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
One more point: the Macuahuitl was a weapon that was noted to be extremely fierce against unarmored opponents but was largely useless against metal armor. Obsidian can be flaked into extremely sharp shards, but it's also extremely brittle. To accurately model one in D&D terms, you'd have a greatclub that deals extra slashing damage, but only against targets that aren't wearing armor and has a cumulative chance of breaking with each use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
2nd edition had LOTS of weapons to choose from, but only a small handful were ever used because the damage die was the only factor that really mattered.
5e did a decent job as creating reason to use certain types of weapons by using Finesse, Light, Heavy and Reach. They even tried to keep a balance between them to prevent any one weapon from being the clear choice (Though they could have done a little better with limiting Finesse so that Dexterity would not be the super stat that it is, but that is a separate rant.)
If you feel that adding other weapons to the mix is needed, that is fine but maybe take the following into consideration.
The difference between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning is mostly irrelevant so being able to choose between them with one weapon doesn't matter.
Adding weapons that deal high amounts of damage will only displace weaker weapons.
Higher damage weapons that have Finesse will make choosing a Dex builds even more common.
Just because it is of a different culture does not mean that it should be some how superior. Exotic should be used to describe fantasy weapons like the Double Bladed Scimitar, Spiked Chain or Chain Swords, not the Katana, Jian, Talwar and the like. After all, in the cultures that they were made, they are not exotic at all.
I like the new ideas. I think DMs often make home brew weapons to do just these sort of things. I know I do. The main weapons are boring and only offer flavor. I have def seen players get like a trident only to show disappointment when it’s just a reflavored spear. I think it’s fine if some of these limitations clash with pole arm master. It actually makes polearm master important to using a polearm. I know min max players abuse polearm master already. At least this gives a real reason to take it.
my only worry is it makes weapons more complex not simple. But my issue was that they are too simple and drive players to obvious but boring and abused choices like using a rapier as a rogue because it maxes damage. I wanna give people a reason to use other weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mog_Dracov suggested macerating, which we could use.
I'll change that. I didn't know the name of the weapon when I watched the movie, so I googled it and looked at pictures until I found something similar.
The reason why I wanted to make things more complicated is that currently, I feel like the difference between weapons is small. A flail and a mace are very different weapons, but function similarly in D&D.
I have been corrected on the halberd, and will remove the bludgeoning aspect of it.
The point of this post is the propose different rules for different weapons, so just calling something a reskin would be anathema to the whole idea.
Thanks for the feedback. (I am not saying this sarcastically. I care about your opinion.)
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
One more point: the Macuahuitl was a weapon that was noted to be extremely fierce against unarmored opponents but was largely useless against metal armor. Obsidian can be flaked into extremely sharp shards, but it's also extremely brittle. To accurately model one in D&D terms, you'd have a greatclub that deals extra slashing damage, but only against targets that aren't wearing armor and has a cumulative chance of breaking with each use.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
2nd edition had LOTS of weapons to choose from, but only a small handful were ever used because the damage die was the only factor that really mattered.
5e did a decent job as creating reason to use certain types of weapons by using Finesse, Light, Heavy and Reach. They even tried to keep a balance between them to prevent any one weapon from being the clear choice (Though they could have done a little better with limiting Finesse so that Dexterity would not be the super stat that it is, but that is a separate rant.)
If you feel that adding other weapons to the mix is needed, that is fine but maybe take the following into consideration.
Just some thoughts.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I like the new ideas. I think DMs often make home brew weapons to do just these sort of things. I know I do. The main weapons are boring and only offer flavor. I have def seen players get like a trident only to show disappointment when it’s just a reflavored spear. I think it’s fine if some of these limitations clash with pole arm master. It actually makes polearm master important to using a polearm. I know min max players abuse polearm master already. At least this gives a real reason to take it.
my only worry is it makes weapons more complex not simple. But my issue was that they are too simple and drive players to obvious but boring and abused choices like using a rapier as a rogue because it maxes damage. I wanna give people a reason to use other weapons.