Overall, how can we make weapons more versatile and attractive to use. Either creating new feats or proficiency or something else.
The dagger vs. Great Sword argument isn't much of an argument. You can at least throw a dagger. Giving the user that extra versatility that doesn't require giving the user any additional roll or value to damage. While other possible versatile options don't exists. Like a whip that can grapple or a net that can entangle. I don't know of any other versatile things you can do with a dagger other than melee & range.
In regards of a club. I mostly imagine a club like a baseball bat. I could imagine a versatile action/feat/profeciency of a club could be a +1/+2 reaction to your AC against ranged attacks. Swing batter batter swing!!! Plus, clubs are extremely easy to come by.
You're arguing that losing 2 damage isn't a big deal?
Yup. What players covet doesn't always align with the reality. Some players value having 19-20 crit range even though that's a really small improvement in the grand scheme of things. Players like their crits.
You can't argue that there should be subpar weapons then argue that it doesn't matter that there are subpar weapons because most people won't use them because they already choose the mechanically best superior option, while arguing that people don't automatically pick the mechanically superior option.
That's not what I said. I said it doesn't matter if whips are weaker because that's not what most players base their weapon choices on.
I get the feeling you're not here to actually contribute, but just want to tell others they're having BadWrongFun, and I have no patience for that kind of attitude. Good bye.
You can play whatever you want; I'm just saying a Whip Mastery feat isn't going to turn anyone into a whip user; it's just going to make existing whip users happier. The existing rules already let players use a whip effectively.
It also makes me wonder what other 'uncatalogued weapons' exist in the game - like the bugbears giant morningstar (2d8)
In this specific case it's just a normal morningstar; the extra damage comes from their Brute trait. Like AaronOfBarbaria said, larger creatures also deal extra damage with their weapons.
Off the top of my head, Flinds have a special magical weapon.
There is an argument a whip does too much damage. I'll Explain, A typical human (not an adventurer) has 1d6 hit points (average of 3.5 hp), a whip does 1d4 (2.5 average), so if you whip your slave twice (5 average damage) you likely just killed them. Makes it not all that useful for the "iconic" scenes of whipping a slave.
At the end of the day a whip really isn't a weapon, it is a tool (Indiana Jones never really uses it for damage), and is a good example of a tool that could do damage, but isn't what it is typically used for.
For me on the odd chance a Monk or Rogue would want to use a whip I'd let them swap it for some other weapon, or just let them do so (same with a net). After all a sling is a simple weapon and actually requires a fair bit of skill to use one.
A house rule I do use for whips and nets though is that a target of the whip or net has disadvantage to avoid a grapple attempt, but it does no damage for that "attack".
There is an argument a whip does too much damage. I'll Explain, A typical human (not an adventurer) has 1d6 hit points (average of 3.5 hp), a whip does 1d4 (2.5 average), so if you whip your slave twice (5 average damage) you likely just killed them. Makes it not all that useful for the "iconic" scenes of whipping a slave.
There are a few flaws in that argument.
Firstly, according to the rules of 5th edition medium sized non-player character creatures use d8s for their hit dice.
Second, there is no mandate that "typical human" creatures that have been given game mechanics traits be limited to a single hit die. The monster stats of a guard are no less "typical human" than the stats of a commoner are.
Third, and most important, the narrative action of "The slave master whips the slaves" can be mechanically represented by an intimidation check if any mechanical representation is decided to be needed, and does not ever have to engage how many hit points the slave has nor how much damage a whip deals - those stats can be reserved for when genuine combat (with assumed intent to kill) is being represented.
Ahh my bad on the 1d6 hp for commoners (typical house rules creeping in). That doesn't change the factor that 2-4 hits of a whip would still kill them within the RAW.
A guard is not what one would consider a 'typical human', by being a guard it is implied they have had more combat training than a commoner, just not enough to be considered part of a martial class.
The master hitting a slave with a whip is a melee weapon attack mechanically within the system RAW, regardless of how you want to narratively undertake things. I'm fairly sure if a PC/NPC decided to repeatedly stab someone with a dagger as an intimidation factor, most DMs would consider that an attack and have the victim take some damage. It is no less intimidating however.
All in all it is a moot point (I don't think a whip has too high a damage rating), it was to show that the damage isn't really the factor as to what the whip can represent (as a devils advocate example).
So some weapons do seem dumb on paper, but can be really useful. For example a dagger seems dumb when you could just use a shortsword, but I play a dual wielding dex based fighter so it makes it really hard to switch between two short swords and a bow for ranged attacks. However, while wielding two daggers I could throw them and draw two new daggers on the same turn with the Dual Wielding feat.
I heavily caution against any tweaking of weapon stats or abilities as I have found any time I try to do that it throws everything else out of balance.
The best way I've seen to make lesser used weapons more useful and appealing is if you use the Variant Greayhawk initiative. Basically for every round of combat you redo initiative based on a number of factors including wether your character is going to move and what type of weapon they will use. To movie you roll a d6 and to use a weapon you roll one of its damage dice. So if you were to move up to an enemy on your turn and swing a shortsword, you roll a d6 for the movement and a d6 for the shortsword, add it together and that is your initiative. Whoever has the lowest initiative goes first.
I really like this method if you have the patience for rolling initiative each round because to me its such a clever way to make the less used weaker weapons more versatile and balanced.
A guard is not what one would consider a 'typical human', by being a guard it is implied they have had more combat training than a commoner, just not enough to be considered part of a martial class.
That's not accurate. If a DM can say "these are just some men from the village that have put on armor, are carrying weapons, and are standing watch at the gate of the town" and still choose to use the guard stat block instead of the commoner stat block, then they are equally "typical human" in nature.
The master hitting a slave with a whip is a melee weapon attack mechanically within the system RAW
Give me a page reference or link to the rule that states that if someone at the table says "the slave master give the slave a lashing with a whip." that it has to be a melee weapon attack - because if you can't provide exactly that, then it is not rules as written that it "is" rather than "can be" a melee weapon attack.
That was my point - your argument, devil's advocate or otherwise, doesn't hold up to the facts of the game.
A commoner putting on armour is just a commoner in armour. A commoner doesn't suddenly get more hit dice just because they don armour and pick up a weapon (as you like being shown, feel free to show in the rules where it says they do).
As to the Whip: The weapons table, on page 149 table clearly lists a Whip as a Martial Melee Weapon. Page 193, under "Making an attack" gives the description "... striking with a melee weapon...", Dictionary.com even states a lash is "aswiftstrokeorblow,withawhiporthelike,givenasapunishment", while stroke as "theactoraninstanceofstriking,aswiththefist,aweapon,ora hammer;ablow" and Blow as "asuddenattack".
So clearly by the rules it is an attack, but wont go into specifics anymore than the rules would say "lashing a slave with a whip is an intimidation factor not an attack".
...feel free to show in the rules where it says they do...
Right... yeah, so tell me which part of this you have a disagreement with:
The DM chooses the stats to use for any npcs or monsters.
The DM can choose to use guard stats if they want to.
The DM can describe the NPC as "Just John, the typical village farmer... but with weapons, armor, and a sense of duty to protect his village." while using the guard stats.
And with that disagreement, if there is one, cite any passage of the rule-books that explains why/how whichever statement is not 100% correct according to how the game works.
So clearly by the rules it is an attack
No. Clearly the rules allow a whip to be used to make attacks - but the rules do not clearly prohibit other uses, nor mandate that the only way a player or DM can use a whip is by making an attack roll.
If a player says "I whip the captive to try and get them to do what I want." the DM absolutely can say, and be entirely correct according to how the game works by saying, "Alright, cool. Roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check." or otherwise narrate the outcome of the stated action without ever being required to involve an attack and/or damage roll. And again, if you think that is literally impossible or violates the rules of the game in some way, show me how.
As for my citation that backs up what I am saying, you'll find it in the very fittingly-named bit of text here.
I think the trident is far worse. If you want to play a class that is not proficient in martial weapons and wields a trident, you would have to multiclass or take a feat to gain proficiency, pay more gold for the weapon, and carry more weight to have the exact mechanics of a weapon you are already proficient in- the spear. You cant reskin a spear to be a trident because it clearly is already a martial weapon.
You cant reskin a spear to be a trident because it clearly is already a martial weapon.
I don't understand what you mean. If you want to use a trident as a class without martial weapons, you use a spear and call it a trident. That's what reskinning is. It doesn't matter if it's already in the game - just call those golden tridents or something.
I mean I agree with you that tridents are worthless additions since they are identical to spears but with steeper requirements, but that doesn't affect your ability to describe things differently.
For what it's worth towards the initial discussion, I think whips are underpowered because reach is only worth 2 steps down on the damage die when considering the potential of Polearm Mastery. That extra attack is the only thing that discourages monsters from just walking up to your face and hitting you. Movement is just too fluid in 5e for reach to prevent being engaged - even prone doesn't really stop it.
For what it's worth towards the initial discussion, I think whips are underpowered because reach is only worth 2 steps down on the damage die when considering the potential of Polearm Mastery. That extra attack is the only thing that discourages monsters from just walking up to your face and hitting you. Movement is just too fluid in 5e for reach to prevent being engaged - even prone doesn't really stop it.
I'd be inclined to add 'light' to the whip; then it's getting only a one-step downgrade (other light martial weapons do d6s).
Whips are fantastic for characters that care more about making attacks (and imposing either damage bonuses on those attacks, or conditions/triggers), then the damage die of the original weapon. A whip attack is only 2 average damage less than a longsword attack, but threatens an additional 16 squares. That is an outstanding value for Battlemaster Fighters, Cavalier Fighters that want to wield shields, Paladins, Rogues, and other specialized attackers.
I thought damage should be marked by the class of the character. I don't care what you say, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a fighter with a dagger isn't going to be far more deadly than a wizard or a druid, even if they have a staff or sword.
Given this, I thought damage should be determined this way...
d12 for Fighters, Rogues when backstabbing or Barbarians when raging d10 for Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins (I realize this ruins the d12 Barbarian "two-die" rule) d8 Clerics, Druids and Monks d6 for everyone else.
Feats and Attribute bonuses, or magic weapon abilities could build up your character in different directions if needed. This way you can "skin" your character any way you want, you can be a fighter uncoiling his whip with the intent to kill in just as many hits as if you had a longsword. It could be I've just watched too many Bourne movies, but a highly trained fighter is more deadly in every fight regardless of what is in his hands at the time. You might stake out a difference between armed and unarmed combat, but it might just be a die lower, or you could stack feats or fighting styles around it to manage it a bit, but in the end I don't think it's necessary. I haven't tried it yet, but I can see it happening, I already use average damage from monster stats in combat.
What if the duelling characters have different reach? What if one of them is unarmed? What if... ? There's lots of ifs, but they are usually managing different aspects of combat, and the amount of simplification this provides might be worth it.
Treating weapons as being like spell focuses (wield a weapon/focus to use your class' special features and abilities, but look to the ability for the damage), and having damage set through tiers by your character or class level, would be a fantastic system I would totally embrace... but which is probably too abstract and "4E" to be embraced in 6E. I can imagine where your damage scales based on level (like a Monk), but weapons impart specialized trait-based buffs/debuffs on your attack (maybe wielding an axe lets you treat your enemy's AC as 1 lower, a rapier lets you treat your own AC as 1 higher against enemies you've attacked, etc.). Sounds like a really cool system.
Treating weapons as being like spell focuses (wield a weapon/focus to use your class' special features and abilities, but look to the ability for the damage), and having damage set through tiers by your character or class level, would be a fantastic system I would totally embrace... but which is probably too abstract and "4E" to be embraced in 6E.
It might be abstract, but it's not 4E; 4E rated weapon-based powers as doing 'xW' so using bigger weapons for your powers was very important.
I meant philosophically, not that 4E used that exact system.
In 4E, classes were categorized by role, and then progression of their abilities (both new abilities unlocking, and old abilities upgrading) was balanced through some objective benchmarks for performance within that role.
In 5E, the damage progression of cantrips from tier to tier is the legacy of that system, where a fire bolt does more damage for an 11th level character than a 1st. You choose Cantrip A over Cantrip B not necessarily because it just does more damage, but because it has unique range, effect, and damage type properties that go along with its scaling damage.
Thats a GOOD system for cantrips, and using it for weapons as well for Martial characters would have made sense as well. But instead, 5E tried to straddle the line with SOME systems feeling like 4E “streamlined play” abstract abilities, and SOME systems feeling like 3.5 “simulation.” Its a compromise that makes martial and magical classes feel very different in the diversity of options they have in combat and what their resource management looks like, which has always been a complaint about endgame balance in every edition OTHER than 4E. 5E doesn’t really make weapon users fall behind on combat effectiveness like they did in 3.5, but it still treats them as being fundamentally different to play than a Wizard, which I think is a poor design choice.
I just had a look at the Drow wielding a Scourge - it's a one handed weapon dealing 1d8 piercing damage and not other weapon properties.
That makes it a Morningstar that has been reskinned with the name "scourge"
Honestly speaking, this is the best way to handle any interesting weapons.
Want a Khopesh for an Egyptian campaign setting? It's a Longsword, but you change the name.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Overall, how can we make weapons more versatile and attractive to use. Either creating new feats or proficiency or something else.
The dagger vs. Great Sword argument isn't much of an argument. You can at least throw a dagger. Giving the user that extra versatility that doesn't require giving the user any additional roll or value to damage. While other possible versatile options don't exists. Like a whip that can grapple or a net that can entangle. I don't know of any other versatile things you can do with a dagger other than melee & range.
In regards of a club. I mostly imagine a club like a baseball bat. I could imagine a versatile action/feat/profeciency of a club could be a +1/+2 reaction to your AC against ranged attacks. Swing batter batter swing!!! Plus, clubs are extremely easy to come by.
There is an argument a whip does too much damage. I'll Explain, A typical human (not an adventurer) has 1d6 hit points (average of 3.5 hp), a whip does 1d4 (2.5 average), so if you whip your slave twice (5 average damage) you likely just killed them. Makes it not all that useful for the "iconic" scenes of whipping a slave.
At the end of the day a whip really isn't a weapon, it is a tool (Indiana Jones never really uses it for damage), and is a good example of a tool that could do damage, but isn't what it is typically used for.
For me on the odd chance a Monk or Rogue would want to use a whip I'd let them swap it for some other weapon, or just let them do so (same with a net). After all a sling is a simple weapon and actually requires a fair bit of skill to use one.
A house rule I do use for whips and nets though is that a target of the whip or net has disadvantage to avoid a grapple attempt, but it does no damage for that "attack".
- Loswaith
Ahh my bad on the 1d6 hp for commoners (typical house rules creeping in). That doesn't change the factor that 2-4 hits of a whip would still kill them within the RAW.
A guard is not what one would consider a 'typical human', by being a guard it is implied they have had more combat training than a commoner, just not enough to be considered part of a martial class.
The master hitting a slave with a whip is a melee weapon attack mechanically within the system RAW, regardless of how you want to narratively undertake things. I'm fairly sure if a PC/NPC decided to repeatedly stab someone with a dagger as an intimidation factor, most DMs would consider that an attack and have the victim take some damage. It is no less intimidating however.
All in all it is a moot point (I don't think a whip has too high a damage rating), it was to show that the damage isn't really the factor as to what the whip can represent (as a devils advocate example).
- Loswaith
So some weapons do seem dumb on paper, but can be really useful. For example a dagger seems dumb when you could just use a shortsword, but I play a dual wielding dex based fighter so it makes it really hard to switch between two short swords and a bow for ranged attacks. However, while wielding two daggers I could throw them and draw two new daggers on the same turn with the Dual Wielding feat.
I heavily caution against any tweaking of weapon stats or abilities as I have found any time I try to do that it throws everything else out of balance.
The best way I've seen to make lesser used weapons more useful and appealing is if you use the Variant Greayhawk initiative. Basically for every round of combat you redo initiative based on a number of factors including wether your character is going to move and what type of weapon they will use. To movie you roll a d6 and to use a weapon you roll one of its damage dice. So if you were to move up to an enemy on your turn and swing a shortsword, you roll a d6 for the movement and a d6 for the shortsword, add it together and that is your initiative. Whoever has the lowest initiative goes first.
I really like this method if you have the patience for rolling initiative each round because to me its such a clever way to make the less used weaker weapons more versatile and balanced.
That's not accurate. If a DM can say "these are just some men from the village that have put on armor, are carrying weapons, and are standing watch at the gate of the town" and still choose to use the guard stat block instead of the commoner stat block, then they are equally "typical human" in nature.
Give me a page reference or link to the rule that states that if someone at the table says "the slave master give the slave a lashing with a whip." that it has to be a melee weapon attack - because if you can't provide exactly that, then it is not rules as written that it "is" rather than "can be" a melee weapon attack.That was my point - your argument, devil's advocate or otherwise, doesn't hold up to the facts of the game.
A commoner putting on armour is just a commoner in armour. A commoner doesn't suddenly get more hit dice just because they don armour and pick up a weapon (as you like being shown, feel free to show in the rules where it says they do).
As to the Whip:
The weapons table, on page 149 table clearly lists a Whip as a Martial Melee Weapon.
Page 193, under "Making an attack" gives the description "... striking with a melee weapon...",
Dictionary.com even states a lash is "a swift stroke or blow, with a whip or the like, given as a punishment", while stroke as "the act or an instance of striking, as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; a blow" and Blow as "a sudden attack".
So clearly by the rules it is an attack, but wont go into specifics anymore than the rules would say "lashing a slave with a whip is an intimidation factor not an attack".
- Loswaith
Right... yeah, so tell me which part of this you have a disagreement with:
And with that disagreement, if there is one, cite any passage of the rule-books that explains why/how whichever statement is not 100% correct according to how the game works.
No. Clearly the rules allow a whip to be used to make attacks - but the rules do not clearly prohibit other uses, nor mandate that the only way a player or DM can use a whip is by making an attack roll.If a player says "I whip the captive to try and get them to do what I want." the DM absolutely can say, and be entirely correct according to how the game works by saying, "Alright, cool. Roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check." or otherwise narrate the outcome of the stated action without ever being required to involve an attack and/or damage roll. And again, if you think that is literally impossible or violates the rules of the game in some way, show me how.
As for my citation that backs up what I am saying, you'll find it in the very fittingly-named bit of text here.
I think the trident is far worse. If you want to play a class that is not proficient in martial weapons and wields a trident, you would have to multiclass or take a feat to gain proficiency, pay more gold for the weapon, and carry more weight to have the exact mechanics of a weapon you are already proficient in- the spear. You cant reskin a spear to be a trident because it clearly is already a martial weapon.
I don't understand what you mean. If you want to use a trident as a class without martial weapons, you use a spear and call it a trident. That's what reskinning is. It doesn't matter if it's already in the game - just call those golden tridents or something.
I mean I agree with you that tridents are worthless additions since they are identical to spears but with steeper requirements, but that doesn't affect your ability to describe things differently.
For what it's worth towards the initial discussion, I think whips are underpowered because reach is only worth 2 steps down on the damage die when considering the potential of Polearm Mastery. That extra attack is the only thing that discourages monsters from just walking up to your face and hitting you. Movement is just too fluid in 5e for reach to prevent being engaged - even prone doesn't really stop it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'd be inclined to add 'light' to the whip; then it's getting only a one-step downgrade (other light martial weapons do d6s).
Whips are fantastic for characters that care more about making attacks (and imposing either damage bonuses on those attacks, or conditions/triggers), then the damage die of the original weapon. A whip attack is only 2 average damage less than a longsword attack, but threatens an additional 16 squares. That is an outstanding value for Battlemaster Fighters, Cavalier Fighters that want to wield shields, Paladins, Rogues, and other specialized attackers.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't know about being over and under powered. I've not thought to much about that. But I think they should be simple weapons not martial.
I thought damage should be marked by the class of the character.
I don't care what you say, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a fighter with a dagger isn't going to be far more deadly than a wizard or a druid, even if they have a staff or sword.
Given this, I thought damage should be determined this way...
d12 for Fighters, Rogues when backstabbing or Barbarians when raging
d10 for Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins (I realize this ruins the d12 Barbarian "two-die" rule)
d8 Clerics, Druids and Monks
d6 for everyone else.
Feats and Attribute bonuses, or magic weapon abilities could build up your character in different directions if needed.
This way you can "skin" your character any way you want, you can be a fighter uncoiling his whip with the intent to kill in just as many hits as if you had a longsword.
It could be I've just watched too many Bourne movies, but a highly trained fighter is more deadly in every fight regardless of what is in his hands at the time.
You might stake out a difference between armed and unarmed combat, but it might just be a die lower, or you could stack feats or fighting styles around it to manage it a bit, but in the end I don't think it's necessary. I haven't tried it yet, but I can see it happening, I already use average damage from monster stats in combat.
What if the duelling characters have different reach?
What if one of them is unarmed?
What if... ? There's lots of ifs, but they are usually managing different aspects of combat, and the amount of simplification this provides might be worth it.
Treating weapons as being like spell focuses (wield a weapon/focus to use your class' special features and abilities, but look to the ability for the damage), and having damage set through tiers by your character or class level, would be a fantastic system I would totally embrace... but which is probably too abstract and "4E" to be embraced in 6E. I can imagine where your damage scales based on level (like a Monk), but weapons impart specialized trait-based buffs/debuffs on your attack (maybe wielding an axe lets you treat your enemy's AC as 1 lower, a rapier lets you treat your own AC as 1 higher against enemies you've attacked, etc.). Sounds like a really cool system.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It might be abstract, but it's not 4E; 4E rated weapon-based powers as doing 'xW' so using bigger weapons for your powers was very important.
I meant philosophically, not that 4E used that exact system.
In 4E, classes were categorized by role, and then progression of their abilities (both new abilities unlocking, and old abilities upgrading) was balanced through some objective benchmarks for performance within that role.
In 5E, the damage progression of cantrips from tier to tier is the legacy of that system, where a fire bolt does more damage for an 11th level character than a 1st. You choose Cantrip A over Cantrip B not necessarily because it just does more damage, but because it has unique range, effect, and damage type properties that go along with its scaling damage.
Thats a GOOD system for cantrips, and using it for weapons as well for Martial characters would have made sense as well. But instead, 5E tried to straddle the line with SOME systems feeling like 4E “streamlined play” abstract abilities, and SOME systems feeling like 3.5 “simulation.” Its a compromise that makes martial and magical classes feel very different in the diversity of options they have in combat and what their resource management looks like, which has always been a complaint about endgame balance in every edition OTHER than 4E. 5E doesn’t really make weapon users fall behind on combat effectiveness like they did in 3.5, but it still treats them as being fundamentally different to play than a Wizard, which I think is a poor design choice.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.