It could be done. Give Trident the Special property (same as Lance and Net has) and give it a special ability when used in tandem with a net. Dunno what, though. Remove disadvantage from throwing the Net at something within 5 feet? More damage to creatures captured by the net? I dunno.
Or maybe something like Vicious Weapons have; when you roll a 20 on your attack, you hit with all 3 spear-tips of the trident and deal some extra damage. Just spitballing.
Let's make this simple, 3 points, 3d4 damage. And you can throw it. That would make the trident unique (and maybe a little broken but we can fix that later).
Again: IRL, having three points technically makes a weapon do less damaging to the human body. The same amount of physical force is spread across multiple areas, effectively making any protection (like skin) triply effective and making each entry point less likely to pierce deeply into vital areas.
You're not wrong, but the resistance of skin and flesh compared to three sharpened spear tips is more than insignificant enough that it wouldn't matter; the 3 pokes from a Trident could do a lot more damage than the single poke of a spear.
Armor on the other hand... yeah, not going to be as effective as a spear.
Maybe that should be its special thing. Something like "Does 1d8 damage to unarmored creatures, but only 1d4 to armored creatures."
Or maybe it should do more damage to Large and bigger creatures, less to Medium and smaller. Hmm I dunno. Bottom line, it should be more than just a more expensive and harder to use spear, or should just be removed.
You're not wrong, but the resistance of skin and flesh compared to three sharpened spear tips is more than insignificant enough that it wouldn't matter; the 3 pokes from a Trident could do a lot more damage than the single poke of a spear.
It's still much easier to kill someone with a spear because a trident's head is going to be much heavier and thus much harder to redirect. If you're going to make a polearm's head heavy, you'd better be getting something useful out if it. That's why halberds made sense in warfare but not tridents; at least the halberd's effective against armor to make up for being more unwieldy, and the user is likely armored too.
Maybe that should be its special thing. Something like "Does 1d8 damage to unarmored creatures, but only 1d4 to armored creatures."
The game isn't set up for this kind of specificity. You could apply the same logic to cutting weapons, but the game deliberately avoids splitting hairs over what kinds of attacks work on what armor. It's hard to apply this kind of realism to monsters too.
Oh I fully agree. Just spitballing ideas for how to make it more than just a crappy spear clone.
There's no way to make it realistically better, because realistically the trident is a terrible - albeit flashy - weapon. I like Tonio's idea of it granting Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to forage near water, but that's such a specific thing that's not related to combat so doesn't really solve the issue.
My ideas could be doable; the armor one would be a lot of minutiae but the creature size one is no more complicated than keeping Versatile weapons' being in 1 or 2 hands in mind, and it would certainly be easier to land a good hit with this useless weapon on a big target than on a small one.
There must be something that could make the Trident, Morningstar and Halberd unique compared to their almost-identical-but-better counterparts, and it would be nice to see something implemented to actually make these weapons stand out. Otherwise they really should just be removed.
How about Advantage in rolls to attempt disarming a one-handed weapon wielder? Maybe make it a contested DEX roll. The opponent could still pick up the weapon on their turn, sure, but in circumstances of low-visibility or if there is a party Monk/Rogue/Battlemaster nearby this could be quite useful.
There must be something that could make the Trident, Morningstar and Halberd unique compared to their almost-identical-but-better counterparts, and it would be nice to see something implemented to actually make these weapons stand out. Otherwise they really should just be removed.
They really don't need to justify their own existence beyond the fact that they have real-world counterparts. Weapon lists aren't just bags of combat stats devoid of context, and they're not only for players. Aesthetics matter, roleplaying matters, and monsters and NPCs also need to reference the weapon lists.
I can put a glaive on a samurai and people will get that it's a naginata. A halberd is not the same thing.
There must be something that could make the Trident, Morningstar and Halberd unique compared to their almost-identical-but-better counterparts, and it would be nice to see something implemented to actually make these weapons stand out. Otherwise they really should just be removed.
They really don't need to justify their own existence beyond the fact that they have real-world counterparts. Weapon lists aren't just bags of combat stats devoid of context, and they're not only for players. Aesthetics matter, roleplaying matters, and monsters and NPCs also need to reference the weapon lists.
I can put a glaive on a samurai and people will get that it's a naginata. A halberd is not the same thing.
Mmm I disagree with all of that. 5e is about simplicity and these weapons are just redundant. You can flavor weapons as whatever you want; the Players Handbook not only recommends this, it provides suggestions. Having redundant weapons is pointless. Creature stat blocks can say whatever they want, it's not like "claws" and "bite" are built in weapons that are being referenced and plenty of humanoids have custom weapons.
If your argument is that they're in there because they have real world counterparts, my counter-argument would be that if that's the case they need to add about a hundred more weapons. Any weapons that are in the game should, in my opinion, have unique attributes.
@KafueLechwe in (very) layman's terms it's a katana-esque blade on the end of a pole.
By your logic we should get rid of the great axe because a greatsword is pretty much always a better choice, but the fact is a player that wants their barbarian to have a big axe isn't going to be happy with a sword. It's not about the damage dice, that's secondary. It's about the fantasy.
If your argument is that they're in there because they have real world counterparts, my counter-argument would be that if that's the case they need to add about a hundred more weapons. Any weapons that are in the game should, in my opinion, have unique attributes.
And my counterargument to that is that they struck a good balance between weapons that provide a clear mechanical benefit and weapons that have a unique aesthetic.
Tridents look cool and have strong pop culture associations to marine adventures and that's reason enough to keep them.
Again: IRL, having three points technically makes a weapon do less damaging to the human body. The same amount of physical force is spread across multiple areas, effectively making any protection (like skin) triply effective and making each entry point less likely to pierce deeply into vital areas.
Any thought to adding the weight to this equation? Agreed on it doing less damage, across 3 tips, based on your logic. However, I think it's important to remember that the weapon is heavier, thereby making the same action (more strength to do so) have a higher overall inertia; counts both for melee and ranged. That'd mean that the point of impact would have more inertia to transfer to the target. Right?
Again: IRL, having three points technically makes a weapon do less damaging to the human body. The same amount of physical force is spread across multiple areas, effectively making any protection (like skin) triply effective and making each entry point less likely to pierce deeply into vital areas.
That assumes that all three point hit. Presumably, the advantage to the trident is not that it does more damage, but that it is less likely to miss.
If we ever get the option to homebrew weapons here, I'm going to make a Great-Trident, that is heavy, 2-handed, and does 3d4 piercing damage.
Normal tridents are the same as spears, but cooler, and more expensive. I think they should be buffed, but I don't think Wizards is going to fix them.
Maybe give it reach?
No, then it would be way better than Greataxes, Greatswords, and Mauls for paladins/fighters. Barbarians still want to take Greataxes, Halberds, and other such weapons because of Brutal Criticals.
Heavy, 2 handed, and 3d4 piercing damage is similar to a greatsword or maul, but does higher average damage, and benefits a lot more from the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The problem is that it has the thrown property, so it needs to have some drawback relative to other one-handed martial weapons, but there's no room between 1d8 (longsword) and 1d6 (spear) except by adding a special property (say, reroll 1s, or extra critical dice).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It could be done. Give Trident the Special property (same as Lance and Net has) and give it a special ability when used in tandem with a net. Dunno what, though. Remove disadvantage from throwing the Net at something within 5 feet? More damage to creatures captured by the net? I dunno.
Or maybe something like Vicious Weapons have; when you roll a 20 on your attack, you hit with all 3 spear-tips of the trident and deal some extra damage. Just spitballing.
Let's make this simple, 3 points, 3d4 damage. And you can throw it. That would make the trident unique (and maybe a little broken but we can fix that later).
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
Again: IRL, having three points technically makes a weapon do less damaging to the human body. The same amount of physical force is spread across multiple areas, effectively making any protection (like skin) triply effective and making each entry point less likely to pierce deeply into vital areas.
You're not wrong, but the resistance of skin and flesh compared to three sharpened spear tips is more than insignificant enough that it wouldn't matter; the 3 pokes from a Trident could do a lot more damage than the single poke of a spear.
Armor on the other hand... yeah, not going to be as effective as a spear.
Maybe that should be its special thing. Something like "Does 1d8 damage to unarmored creatures, but only 1d4 to armored creatures."
Or maybe it should do more damage to Large and bigger creatures, less to Medium and smaller. Hmm I dunno. Bottom line, it should be more than just a more expensive and harder to use spear, or should just be removed.
It's still much easier to kill someone with a spear because a trident's head is going to be much heavier and thus much harder to redirect. If you're going to make a polearm's head heavy, you'd better be getting something useful out if it. That's why halberds made sense in warfare but not tridents; at least the halberd's effective against armor to make up for being more unwieldy, and the user is likely armored too.
The game isn't set up for this kind of specificity. You could apply the same logic to cutting weapons, but the game deliberately avoids splitting hairs over what kinds of attacks work on what armor. It's hard to apply this kind of realism to monsters too.
Oh I fully agree. Just spitballing ideas for how to make it more than just a crappy spear clone.
There's no way to make it realistically better, because realistically the trident is a terrible - albeit flashy - weapon. I like Tonio's idea of it granting Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to forage near water, but that's such a specific thing that's not related to combat so doesn't really solve the issue.
My ideas could be doable; the armor one would be a lot of minutiae but the creature size one is no more complicated than keeping Versatile weapons' being in 1 or 2 hands in mind, and it would certainly be easier to land a good hit with this useless weapon on a big target than on a small one.
There must be something that could make the Trident, Morningstar and Halberd unique compared to their almost-identical-but-better counterparts, and it would be nice to see something implemented to actually make these weapons stand out. Otherwise they really should just be removed.
How about Advantage in rolls to attempt disarming a one-handed weapon wielder? Maybe make it a contested DEX roll. The opponent could still pick up the weapon on their turn, sure, but in circumstances of low-visibility or if there is a party Monk/Rogue/Battlemaster nearby this could be quite useful.
They really don't need to justify their own existence beyond the fact that they have real-world counterparts. Weapon lists aren't just bags of combat stats devoid of context, and they're not only for players. Aesthetics matter, roleplaying matters, and monsters and NPCs also need to reference the weapon lists.
I can put a glaive on a samurai and people will get that it's a naginata. A halberd is not the same thing.
What is a naginata?
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
Mmm I disagree with all of that. 5e is about simplicity and these weapons are just redundant. You can flavor weapons as whatever you want; the Players Handbook not only recommends this, it provides suggestions. Having redundant weapons is pointless. Creature stat blocks can say whatever they want, it's not like "claws" and "bite" are built in weapons that are being referenced and plenty of humanoids have custom weapons.
If your argument is that they're in there because they have real world counterparts, my counter-argument would be that if that's the case they need to add about a hundred more weapons. Any weapons that are in the game should, in my opinion, have unique attributes.
@KafueLechwe in (very) layman's terms it's a katana-esque blade on the end of a pole.
You're free to not like it but that's clearly not how the game's designers look at the weapon list:
"Weapon choice passes through proficiencies, features, and aesthetic/cultural preferences. Overlap is intentional."
"The weapon list is, indeed, meant to be understood within the game's larger context: proficiencies, aesthetics, magic items, etc."
Like I said, story and aesthetics matter an awful lot. That's why humans, dwarves and elves are consistently the most popular races even when other options are stronger and why UA subclasses fall flat when their story doesn't resonate with players.
By your logic we should get rid of the great axe because a greatsword is pretty much always a better choice, but the fact is a player that wants their barbarian to have a big axe isn't going to be happy with a sword. It's not about the damage dice, that's secondary. It's about the fantasy.
And my counterargument to that is that they struck a good balance between weapons that provide a clear mechanical benefit and weapons that have a unique aesthetic.
Tridents look cool and have strong pop culture associations to marine adventures and that's reason enough to keep them.
Any thought to adding the weight to this equation? Agreed on it doing less damage, across 3 tips, based on your logic. However, I think it's important to remember that the weapon is heavier, thereby making the same action (more strength to do so) have a higher overall inertia; counts both for melee and ranged. That'd mean that the point of impact would have more inertia to transfer to the target. Right?
The Trident was designed for fishing. The weapon version should have been treated more like a Military Fork instead.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
That assumes that all three point hit. Presumably, the advantage to the trident is not that it does more damage, but that it is less likely to miss.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
If we ever get the option to homebrew weapons here, I'm going to make a Great-Trident, that is heavy, 2-handed, and does 3d4 piercing damage.
Normal tridents are the same as spears, but cooler, and more expensive. I think they should be buffed, but I don't think Wizards is going to fix them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Maybe give it reach?
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
No, then it would be way better than Greataxes, Greatswords, and Mauls for paladins/fighters. Barbarians still want to take Greataxes, Halberds, and other such weapons because of Brutal Criticals.
Heavy, 2 handed, and 3d4 piercing damage is similar to a greatsword or maul, but does higher average damage, and benefits a lot more from the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Seems legit
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
It would be a weapon worth taking. It would also fit really well thematically and mechanically with Triton paladins.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The problem is that it has the thrown property, so it needs to have some drawback relative to other one-handed martial weapons, but there's no room between 1d8 (longsword) and 1d6 (spear) except by adding a special property (say, reroll 1s, or extra critical dice).