In Pathfinder some weapons had additional properties like Trip and or Grapple, they would give +2 on the contested check to either grapple or knock an opponent prone. They also had feats to improve it, such as improved trip giving +4 and greater trip giving +6. So grapple and trip builds were a thing, because you could really lock down an enemy.
Honestly, damage increasing by level is exactly what happens already. All the fighting classes get to do double the damage they normally do at Level 5 when they get an extra attack.
I like that there needn't be a "penalty" to allow you to try something "interesting". Someone in my daughter's game thought it would be neat to get a blowgun, but they almost literally do no damage... interest lost due to game mechanics...
Honestly, damage increasing by level is exactly what happens already. All the fighting classes get to do double the damage they normally do at Level 5 when they get an extra attack.
I like that there needn't be a "penalty" to allow you to try something "interesting". Someone in my daughter's game thought it would be neat to get a blowgun, but they almost literally do no damage... interest lost due to game mechanics...
Yeah, blowguns are slings but worse, in practice. I don't really understand why they're martial weapons, but then, that's like asking why tridents even exist.
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.
They already are. A fighter with a dagger is likely to be dealing 1d4+3 damage per hit at first level, possibly more depending on character creation rules and what fighting style they chose. Meanwhile, the wizard with a staff will be striking for, most likely, 1d8-1. That's at first level. The disparity is only going to grow from there as the fighter gets ASIs, Feats, subclass abilities, and Extra Attack.
Tying weapon damage to the character's class is ridiculous and would only serve to make playing a class that doesn't cast spells even more generic than it already is.
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.
I think the whip, being the only one-handed weapon with the reach property, it is very useful if you plan to keep distance and use a lot of reaction for opportunity attacks.
I believe it's also the only Reach weapon with Finesse, so if your Dex modifier is better than your Str, a whip is possibly better than a pike or lance.
If you have the Sentinel feat, a reach weapon is especially useful. You can singlehandedly hold a 25-foot-wide choke.
Yeah, blowguns are slings but worse, in practice. I don't really understand why they're martial weapons, but then, that's like asking why tridents even exist.
I was inspired tomake a trident using character after watching Aquaman, but they are so bad in this game.
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.
They already are. A fighter with a dagger is likely to be dealing 1d4+3 damage per hit at first level, possibly more depending on character creation rules and what fighting style they chose. Meanwhile, the wizard with a staff will be striking for, most likely, 1d8-1. That's at first level. The disparity is only going to grow from there as the fighter gets ASIs, Feats, subclass abilities, and Extra Attack.
Tying weapon damage to the character's class is ridiculous and would only serve to make playing a class that doesn't cast spells even more generic than it already is.
Those differences are only strength and/or dexterity - based, and only if you're fully optimizing your character. There's beefcakes who want to become Rogues (Conan) and Fighters who missed their callings as Necromancers, too. If it makes one class generic, it makes all of them generic, and that might be the point. It would make it easier and faster in combat, and would open up player customization options that wouldn't be inhibited by mechanics, and optional abilities would actually make a difference over damage. Also, the fighter is just about the only class that doesn't cast spells, unless they're an Eldritch Knight.
I do see a new problem that would emerge now also, as everyone would want to multi-class one level as a Fighter, maybe. Again, mechanics wins over creativity. I guess the reality is the old tricks are the best tricks.
No more debate, it's a bad idea. I guess once you get into it, a magic weapon will likely end up in the fighter's hands, again boosting any differential, then extra attacks adding DPR from there. I'm lacking the knowledge of not having played a high(er)-level campaign, I guess. I can visualize the progression of a spellcaster, but a Fighter progression is hazy.
I was inspired tomake a trident using character after watching Aquaman, but they are so bad in this game.
We could come up with a community house rule for weapons that need some love, but I think it'd be pretty difficult coming to a consensus.
Using 3.5E/Pathfinder for inspiration and modifying for 5E's much simpler combat rules, here's my humble submission:
Pronged (applies to tridents and any other weapons the GM introduces that they agree have a pronged shape, such as a sai or jitte): When using this weapon to Shove, you can declare before rolling that the goal of this shove is to knock the target prone. If you do so, you may grant yourself advantage on the Athletics check to Shove, and if you are wielding the weapon two-handed, you may Shove a target up to two sizes larger than you. If you do this and still fail the check, you drop the weapon in your space.
The current way damage works in D&D, characters all become identical physically, and only their class/feat mixes distinguish them. EVERY strength-based fighter gets 20 strength, the strongest human alive. EVERY Wizard gets 20 intelligence. EVERY bard gets 20 charisma. On and on...
If you read or watch fiction, that’s not how fantasy narratives work. There’s strong fighters and nimble fighters and clever fighters and reckless fighters and tactical fighters and sneaky fighters, a million different ways for one fighter to be special from another.
To some extent, 5E does that with subclasses, and with an implication that nobody else in the game world shares those PC subclasses (NPCs have different rules, they aren’t built to approximate PC subclasses). But still, you get NPCs and PCs alike gravitating towards the same ability scores over time...
I just think there’s got to be another way to think about this. Class-based damage progression, where you’re free to diversify your characters ability scores, special traits and tricks and perks, etc etc to make them PLAY different, not do more damage. All fighters in a tier should be equally lethal for balance, but they should all know different tricks based on their unique training, not be forced into strength or Dex to stay on a damage curve.
I just think there’s got to be another way to think about this.
I think the low-hanging fruit you're after is to make everyone more MAD - give everyone, regardless of class, a way to use every ability score, and you'll open builds up to pursuing those other uses.
For example, adding more direct combat utility to the mental stats, so it's easier to build a martial pursuing them, you could do this (opposed skill checks below will work exactly like how Shove is currently Athletics vs victim's choice of Athletics or Acrobatics, including that you can replace an attack with them when using Extra Attack):
Charisma: Goad: Anyone can roll Intimidate vs Intimidate; on a success, the target has disadvantage on attack rolls against anyone who hasn't Goaded them until the end of their next turn. The target knows they have been Goaded and can tell before attacking if a target has or hasn't Goaded them. Goad requires the target to hear and see the Goader.
Intelligence: Probe Weakness: Anyone can roll Investigate vs Investigate to learn the target's current armor class and bonus to Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength saves.
Wisdom: Probe Mental Weakness: Anyone can roll Insight vs Deception to learn the target's current bonus to Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom saves.
That needs a lot of tightening up before I'd ship it, but you get the idea - give the other stats more baseline utility in combat.
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
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.
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
Then why are they both martial (making them harder to be proficient in than spears) and more expensive than spears? Many weapons exist that are not in the weapons table, like a sai or jitte. Why even include tridents, let alone make them harder to master and harder to buy than a spear?
Before Tashas, monks would scale melee simple but lose features for melee martial, even if proficient. IF there were to be published a similar feature for some class that did the opposite (benefits from martial weapons, lost with simple), the trident would be a good choice for a flexible 1H thrown versatile weapon. Perhaps when they were crafting that table, Battlemasters only did maneuvers with Martial Weapons? Who knows, there’s always hope for the future...
Now, the weapon that is REALLY irredeemable is the Greatclub, which is just a crappier/heavier Quarterstaff :)
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
Then why are they both martial (making them harder to be proficient in than spears) and more expensive than spears? Many weapons exist that are not in the weapons table, like a sai or jitte. Why even include tridents, let alone make them harder to master and harder to buy than a spear?
As near as I can figure, to pad out the weapons table.
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.
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
Sure, but there are numerous fantasy examples. But yeah I mean they looked so cool in the fights between Jason Momoa and the other dude in the Aquaman movie, not to mention all of the fluff about mermen and underwater humanoids using them. It would be nice if some of the feats etc like polearm master worked with them.
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
I suspect it might be a similar case to the scythe. A trident is just a pitchfork, which is an agricultural implement. It would be used as an improvised weapon by revolting peasants or conscripts, but not by professional soldiers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In Pathfinder some weapons had additional properties like Trip and or Grapple, they would give +2 on the contested check to either grapple or knock an opponent prone. They also had feats to improve it, such as improved trip giving +4 and greater trip giving +6. So grapple and trip builds were a thing, because you could really lock down an enemy.
> …why would a player choose a whip as weapon.
> …a whip would be cool …
That's your answer right there.
Honestly, damage increasing by level is exactly what happens already. All the fighting classes get to do double the damage they normally do at Level 5 when they get an extra attack.
I like that there needn't be a "penalty" to allow you to try something "interesting". Someone in my daughter's game thought it would be neat to get a blowgun, but they almost literally do no damage... interest lost due to game mechanics...
Yeah, blowguns are slings but worse, in practice. I don't really understand why they're martial weapons, but then, that's like asking why tridents even exist.
Not sure if anyone has said it, but a Kensei monk with a whip is a force of friggin nature, man.
They already are. A fighter with a dagger is likely to be dealing 1d4+3 damage per hit at first level, possibly more depending on character creation rules and what fighting style they chose. Meanwhile, the wizard with a staff will be striking for, most likely, 1d8-1. That's at first level. The disparity is only going to grow from there as the fighter gets ASIs, Feats, subclass abilities, and Extra Attack.
Tying weapon damage to the character's class is ridiculous and would only serve to make playing a class that doesn't cast spells even more generic than it already is.
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.
I believe it's also the only Reach weapon with Finesse, so if your Dex modifier is better than your Str, a whip is possibly better than a pike or lance.
If you have the Sentinel feat, a reach weapon is especially useful. You can singlehandedly hold a 25-foot-wide choke.
I was inspired tomake a trident using character after watching Aquaman, but they are so bad in this game.
Those differences are only strength and/or dexterity - based, and only if you're fully optimizing your character. There's beefcakes who want to become Rogues (Conan) and Fighters who missed their callings as Necromancers, too. If it makes one class generic, it makes all of them generic, and that might be the point. It would make it easier and faster in combat, and would open up player customization options that wouldn't be inhibited by mechanics, and optional abilities would actually make a difference over damage. Also, the fighter is just about the only class that doesn't cast spells, unless they're an Eldritch Knight.
I do see a new problem that would emerge now also, as everyone would want to multi-class one level as a Fighter, maybe. Again, mechanics wins over creativity. I guess the reality is the old tricks are the best tricks.
No more debate, it's a bad idea. I guess once you get into it, a magic weapon will likely end up in the fighter's hands, again boosting any differential, then extra attacks adding DPR from there. I'm lacking the knowledge of not having played a high(er)-level campaign, I guess. I can visualize the progression of a spellcaster, but a Fighter progression is hazy.
We could come up with a community house rule for weapons that need some love, but I think it'd be pretty difficult coming to a consensus.
Using 3.5E/Pathfinder for inspiration and modifying for 5E's much simpler combat rules, here's my humble submission:
Pronged (applies to tridents and any other weapons the GM introduces that they agree have a pronged shape, such as a sai or jitte): When using this weapon to Shove, you can declare before rolling that the goal of this shove is to knock the target prone. If you do so, you may grant yourself advantage on the Athletics check to Shove, and if you are wielding the weapon two-handed, you may Shove a target up to two sizes larger than you. If you do this and still fail the check, you drop the weapon in your space.
The current way damage works in D&D, characters all become identical physically, and only their class/feat mixes distinguish them. EVERY strength-based fighter gets 20 strength, the strongest human alive. EVERY Wizard gets 20 intelligence. EVERY bard gets 20 charisma. On and on...
If you read or watch fiction, that’s not how fantasy narratives work. There’s strong fighters and nimble fighters and clever fighters and reckless fighters and tactical fighters and sneaky fighters, a million different ways for one fighter to be special from another.
To some extent, 5E does that with subclasses, and with an implication that nobody else in the game world shares those PC subclasses (NPCs have different rules, they aren’t built to approximate PC subclasses). But still, you get NPCs and PCs alike gravitating towards the same ability scores over time...
I just think there’s got to be another way to think about this. Class-based damage progression, where you’re free to diversify your characters ability scores, special traits and tricks and perks, etc etc to make them PLAY different, not do more damage. All fighters in a tier should be equally lethal for balance, but they should all know different tricks based on their unique training, not be forced into strength or Dex to stay on a damage curve.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think the low-hanging fruit you're after is to make everyone more MAD - give everyone, regardless of class, a way to use every ability score, and you'll open builds up to pursuing those other uses.
For example, adding more direct combat utility to the mental stats, so it's easier to build a martial pursuing them, you could do this (opposed skill checks below will work exactly like how Shove is currently Athletics vs victim's choice of Athletics or Acrobatics, including that you can replace an attack with them when using Extra Attack):
That needs a lot of tightening up before I'd ship it, but you get the idea - give the other stats more baseline utility in combat.
You know, one of the things about the trident is that it really doesn't have compelling documentation of being used as a weapon outside of Roman gladiatorial arenas. From that standpoint, it honestly should be an inferior weapon, since the point was to give an exciting fight for the audience rather than to be efficient at killing enemy soldiers.
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.
Then why are they both martial (making them harder to be proficient in than spears) and more expensive than spears? Many weapons exist that are not in the weapons table, like a sai or jitte. Why even include tridents, let alone make them harder to master and harder to buy than a spear?
Before Tashas, monks would scale melee simple but lose features for melee martial, even if proficient. IF there were to be published a similar feature for some class that did the opposite (benefits from martial weapons, lost with simple), the trident would be a good choice for a flexible 1H thrown versatile weapon. Perhaps when they were crafting that table, Battlemasters only did maneuvers with Martial Weapons? Who knows, there’s always hope for the future...
Now, the weapon that is REALLY irredeemable is the Greatclub, which is just a crappier/heavier Quarterstaff :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
New subclass
Needs some tweaks, but exactly, I NEED that!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As near as I can figure, to pad out the weapons table.
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.
Sure, but there are numerous fantasy examples. But yeah I mean they looked so cool in the fights between Jason Momoa and the other dude in the Aquaman movie, not to mention all of the fluff about mermen and underwater humanoids using them. It would be nice if some of the feats etc like polearm master worked with them.
I suspect it might be a similar case to the scythe. A trident is just a pitchfork, which is an agricultural implement. It would be used as an improvised weapon by revolting peasants or conscripts, but not by professional soldiers.