As MattV mentioned, tridents are hardier weapons. If your group plays with house rules where weapons get damaged through repeated use, then the trident should have some benefit over a spear. Or homebrew a rule where attacking two handed with a trident gives a set bonus to disarming an opponent.
A trident is unwieldy compared to a spear. It’s primary use is for fishing (I’ve read, but not confirmed the three points help compensate for parallax, which isn’t an issue if you are fully submerged) and it’s secondary use is for gladiatorial dispatch. It’s just not a good weapon of war. Certainly not as good as the cheaper, simpler, and more effective spear. It should be nerfed, not buffed, if anything.
yeah, let's make an already useless item even more useless. good idea. this is a fantasy game, not everything has to be realistic, but mechanically speaking, the trident is the only "useless" weapon, as it has extra conditions placed upon its use for no extra stats or abilities. If you're going to make a game that is all about making things up in your head and reflavouring weapons to make them fit your needs, you would think that the weapons you include in the game would at least demonstrate either a) an idea for what stats to use for a given weapon type or b) an equivalence between different weapons that otherwise might deal different damage ie the longsword, the battleaxe, the warhammer. Therefore if you're going to put the trident on the list of weapons for your game it should at least do one of those two things. If you took the trident off the list of weapons, most players and DMs would either use a reflavoured spear, still with the classification of simple weapons or make it martial with stats on par to a longsword.
The fact that a trident is unwieldy and inappropriate for combat doesn’t mean you can’t use it enjoyably in the game. It’s quite an iconic item to make a magical item from, for example. Or perhaps someone will just use it thematically. I just don’t think it’s a big deal that it’s expensive and hard to use. There is enough suspension of disbelief to make this game work that we don’t need to artificially “balance” such things.
The fact that a trident is unwieldy and inappropriate for combat doesn’t mean you can’t use it enjoyably in the game. It’s quite an iconic item to make a magical item from, for example. Or perhaps someone will just use it thematically. I just don’t think it’s a big deal that it’s expensive and hard to use. There is enough suspension of disbelief to make this game work that we don’t need to artificially “balance” such things.
There are two general arguments regarding the trident:
It's strictly worse than a spear, and therefore has no place in the game, or should be fixed by giving it a proper place in the game
Realistically speaking, it is worse than a spear, and therefore is fine as it is in the game.
Argument (2) ignores the fact that this is, after all, a game, and great effort has been invested into making it a balanced game. Not all of the "fixes" are realistic. For example, longbows are realistically superior to shortbows, but shortbows were still used for plenty of reasons, one of which was that it requires much greater strength to draw a longbow. There is no such proviso in the D&D 5e rules.
As it is, most weapons are equally valuable, although obviously not for every character. Some are stronger, but have stricter requirements. Some are more versatile, but have higher costs. In short, most weapons can be "optimal" for a certain situation/character. Not so, for the trident. In any situation where a trident could be used, a spear would be at least as good. In most situations, a spear would be better.
If you want to argue that "that's as should be, since realistically speaking, tridents weren't/aren't any better than spears in combat, and are more difficult to use, and are more expensive", then the solution should be to remove them from the weapons list, and make them spears, mechanically, fudging away the "more difficult to use" in the name of game balance. Obviously, not all "daggers" cost the same; the figure listed in the PHB is for a "baseline, run-of-the-mill dagger". A jewel encrusted dagger would cost more. A dagger made of an exotic material would probably cost more, too. Realistically speaking, an exotic dagger could also be more difficult to use, given its different balance, grip, etc. So make "tridents" be "exotic spears".
Some think that tridents are iconic enough they should stay as weapons, separate from spears. In that case, they should be balanced along with the other weapons. Give them better damage, or longer reach, or hell, have them grant Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to find food around bodies of water.
Isn't a Trident typically made entirely of metal? Or at least, it is in all fanciful representations (like DnD, movies and TV, etc). Perhaps this could allow a bump of +1 or +2 to AC while being wielded in both hands?
Just give a Trident a +1 damage modifier over a Spear as a Homebrew rule. That's it.
- Justifies being a Martial Weapon > Simple, and gives a mechanic reason for why stabbing something with multiple tips would be ideal over a single point.
- Gives the weapon a needed damage buff to match it closer to a Longsword, but trades having a lower damage cap by having a higher damage floor and can be thrown.
- Doesn't work with any feats, so allows other weapons to still have mechanical benefits over it, so it doesn't step on other weapon's toes (Halberd/Glaive) except for the Spear, which it SHOULD be an objective improvement over (and at that, the Spear benefits from Feats the Trident doesn't, so even still, there is reason to take it based on build).
You could say that you can use your STR modifier for the trident ranged attacks, not just DEX
Both Spear and Trident do use STR instead of DEX when thrown. Neither are finesse weapons.
Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.
Quite frankly 5e has some problems with basic Equipment. Padded Armor is basically unusable, they're lacking 2d4 damage weapons, they're missing things like Scythes and Gauntlets that are both commonly available and unique types of weapons.
Quite frankly 5e has some problems with basic Equipment. Padded Armor is basically unusable, they're lacking 2d4 damage weapons, they're missing things like Scythes and Gauntlets that are both commonly available and unique types of weapons.
A scythe is just a bad glaive in much the same way a trident is a bad spear when it comes to combat. Gauntlets aren't even weapons; they're hand protection.
Quite frankly 5e has some problems with basic Equipment. Padded Armor is basically unusable, they're lacking 2d4 damage weapons, they're missing things like Scythes and Gauntlets that are both commonly available and unique types of weapons.
A scythe is just a bad glaive in much the same way a trident is a bad spear when it comes to combat. Gauntlets aren't even weapons; they're hand protection.
They probably meant something more like the cestus, something to make your unarmed attacks do more than 1 + STR damage without being a monk or having natural weapons. Whether that's "missing" (as in "not in-game, but desirable") is another issue, though.
Honestly I personally wish all weapons they bothered to put in were unique. Besides gold cost and being Simple/Martial or whatever, multiple weapons are the exact same and even more are just barely different (typically different damage type i.e. bludgeoning instead of piercing, which at least is understandable.)
Morningstars and Warpicks Glaives and Halberds And of course, Spear and Trident
Probably more that I missed, but the above are exactly the same besides maybe category (for the spear anyway) and cost. Hell, Glaives and Halberds are EXACTLY the same; 6 lbs, 20 gp, both Martial weapons, same properties, damage type and damage die. The flavor of it is great, but I would just as soon they be left out for simplicity's sake. I know some classes are proficient in one and not the other, but that's kinda pointless too, particularly since as far as I am aware classes are always proficient in the cheaper & easier to use one (such as Druids being proficient with Spears) and not the more expensive one.
For weapons not built in, do what I and my players have done in the past; take the closest thing that makes sense and re-flavor it to the weapon you want. If you want your character to use cestus', grab a couple clubs and call them cestus'. Want to use a Scythe, grab a Glaive and call it one. One of my players uses a short shovel as a weapon having taken the Folk Hero background and being a gravedigger before he began adventuring, so he uses a Yklwa and calls it a Shovel. Simple enough.
Halberds, Morningstars and Tridents shouldn't exist as they are now; Halberd is the exact same as Glaive, and both Morningstar and Trident are just worse versions of the Warpick and Spear respectively.
tridents should have a benefit when fighting alongside a net
That's a subclass or feat idea. If you've got an idea of one I'd love to see it, but that's not something that should be on the default properties of a weapon. The defaults of weapons should be basic. My problem is just that WotC shys away from diversifying within that basic framework.
That's a subclass or feat idea. If you've got an idea of one I'd love to see it, but that's not something that should be on the default properties of a weapon. The defaults of weapons should be basic. My problem is just that WotC shys away from diversifying within that basic framework.
In a game like D&D with a magic system, the complexity budget for basic weapon attacks is much lower outside of classes like the Fighter that are 100% weapons/armor driven. In a game where everyone's a fighter, there's a lot more room to build the nuances of different weapons and armor into the core rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As MattV mentioned, tridents are hardier weapons. If your group plays with house rules where weapons get damaged through repeated use, then the trident should have some benefit over a spear. Or homebrew a rule where attacking two handed with a trident gives a set bonus to disarming an opponent.
A trident is unwieldy compared to a spear. It’s primary use is for fishing (I’ve read, but not confirmed the three points help compensate for parallax, which isn’t an issue if you are fully submerged) and it’s secondary use is for gladiatorial dispatch. It’s just not a good weapon of war. Certainly not as good as the cheaper, simpler, and more effective spear. It should be nerfed, not buffed, if anything.
yeah, let's make an already useless item even more useless. good idea. this is a fantasy game, not everything has to be realistic, but mechanically speaking, the trident is the only "useless" weapon, as it has extra conditions placed upon its use for no extra stats or abilities. If you're going to make a game that is all about making things up in your head and reflavouring weapons to make them fit your needs, you would think that the weapons you include in the game would at least demonstrate either a) an idea for what stats to use for a given weapon type or b) an equivalence between different weapons that otherwise might deal different damage ie the longsword, the battleaxe, the warhammer. Therefore if you're going to put the trident on the list of weapons for your game it should at least do one of those two things. If you took the trident off the list of weapons, most players and DMs would either use a reflavoured spear, still with the classification of simple weapons or make it martial with stats on par to a longsword.
The fact that a trident is unwieldy and inappropriate for combat doesn’t mean you can’t use it enjoyably in the game. It’s quite an iconic item to make a magical item from, for example. Or perhaps someone will just use it thematically. I just don’t think it’s a big deal that it’s expensive and hard to use. There is enough suspension of disbelief to make this game work that we don’t need to artificially “balance” such things.
The fact that a trident is unwieldy and inappropriate for combat doesn’t mean you can’t use it enjoyably in the game. It’s quite an iconic item to make a magical item from, for example. Or perhaps someone will just use it thematically. I just don’t think it’s a big deal that it’s expensive and hard to use. There is enough suspension of disbelief to make this game work that we don’t need to artificially “balance” such things.
There are two general arguments regarding the trident:
Argument (2) ignores the fact that this is, after all, a game, and great effort has been invested into making it a balanced game. Not all of the "fixes" are realistic. For example, longbows are realistically superior to shortbows, but shortbows were still used for plenty of reasons, one of which was that it requires much greater strength to draw a longbow. There is no such proviso in the D&D 5e rules.
As it is, most weapons are equally valuable, although obviously not for every character. Some are stronger, but have stricter requirements. Some are more versatile, but have higher costs. In short, most weapons can be "optimal" for a certain situation/character. Not so, for the trident. In any situation where a trident could be used, a spear would be at least as good. In most situations, a spear would be better.
If you want to argue that "that's as should be, since realistically speaking, tridents weren't/aren't any better than spears in combat, and are more difficult to use, and are more expensive", then the solution should be to remove them from the weapons list, and make them spears, mechanically, fudging away the "more difficult to use" in the name of game balance. Obviously, not all "daggers" cost the same; the figure listed in the PHB is for a "baseline, run-of-the-mill dagger". A jewel encrusted dagger would cost more. A dagger made of an exotic material would probably cost more, too. Realistically speaking, an exotic dagger could also be more difficult to use, given its different balance, grip, etc. So make "tridents" be "exotic spears".
Some think that tridents are iconic enough they should stay as weapons, separate from spears. In that case, they should be balanced along with the other weapons. Give them better damage, or longer reach, or hell, have them grant Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to find food around bodies of water.
Isn't a Trident typically made entirely of metal? Or at least, it is in all fanciful representations (like DnD, movies and TV, etc). Perhaps this could allow a bump of +1 or +2 to AC while being wielded in both hands?
Just give a Trident a +1 damage modifier over a Spear as a Homebrew rule. That's it.
- Justifies being a Martial Weapon > Simple, and gives a mechanic reason for why stabbing something with multiple tips would be ideal over a single point.
- Gives the weapon a needed damage buff to match it closer to a Longsword, but trades having a lower damage cap by having a higher damage floor and can be thrown.
- Doesn't work with any feats, so allows other weapons to still have mechanical benefits over it, so it doesn't step on other weapon's toes (Halberd/Glaive) except for the Spear, which it SHOULD be an objective improvement over (and at that, the Spear benefits from Feats the Trident doesn't, so even still, there is reason to take it based on build).
You could say that you can use your STR modifier for the trident ranged attacks, not just DEX
Both Spear and Trident do use STR instead of DEX when thrown. Neither are finesse weapons.
Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.
Oh, never mind.
Quite frankly 5e has some problems with basic Equipment. Padded Armor is basically unusable, they're lacking 2d4 damage weapons, they're missing things like Scythes and Gauntlets that are both commonly available and unique types of weapons.
Third option.
3. Its strictly worse thatn a spear, so players can choose to use one to show how badass their character is.
A scythe is just a bad glaive in much the same way a trident is a bad spear when it comes to combat. Gauntlets aren't even weapons; they're hand protection.
They probably meant something more like the cestus, something to make your unarmed attacks do more than 1 + STR damage without being a monk or having natural weapons. Whether that's "missing" (as in "not in-game, but desirable") is another issue, though.
Honestly I personally wish all weapons they bothered to put in were unique. Besides gold cost and being Simple/Martial or whatever, multiple weapons are the exact same and even more are just barely different (typically different damage type i.e. bludgeoning instead of piercing, which at least is understandable.)
Morningstars and Warpicks
Glaives and Halberds
And of course, Spear and Trident
Probably more that I missed, but the above are exactly the same besides maybe category (for the spear anyway) and cost. Hell, Glaives and Halberds are EXACTLY the same; 6 lbs, 20 gp, both Martial weapons, same properties, damage type and damage die. The flavor of it is great, but I would just as soon they be left out for simplicity's sake. I know some classes are proficient in one and not the other, but that's kinda pointless too, particularly since as far as I am aware classes are always proficient in the cheaper & easier to use one (such as Druids being proficient with Spears) and not the more expensive one.
For weapons not built in, do what I and my players have done in the past; take the closest thing that makes sense and re-flavor it to the weapon you want. If you want your character to use cestus', grab a couple clubs and call them cestus'. Want to use a Scythe, grab a Glaive and call it one. One of my players uses a short shovel as a weapon having taken the Folk Hero background and being a gravedigger before he began adventuring, so he uses a Yklwa and calls it a Shovel. Simple enough.
Halberds, Morningstars and Tridents shouldn't exist as they are now; Halberd is the exact same as Glaive, and both Morningstar and Trident are just worse versions of the Warpick and Spear respectively.
tridents should have a benefit when fighting alongside a net
The Retiarius seemed to be more of a themed fighter, strictly for the arena. I've never heard of any actual army fielding tridents in battle.
That's a subclass or feat idea. If you've got an idea of one I'd love to see it, but that's not something that should be on the default properties of a weapon. The defaults of weapons should be basic. My problem is just that WotC shys away from diversifying within that basic framework.
In a game like D&D with a magic system, the complexity budget for basic weapon attacks is much lower outside of classes like the Fighter that are 100% weapons/armor driven. In a game where everyone's a fighter, there's a lot more room to build the nuances of different weapons and armor into the core rules.