1) Id like to see more weapons with the "Special" property. Right now we have the Lance and Nets in the PHB and I think the Double-Bladed Scimitar from another source and thats about it. I think giving ALL weapons some sort of special ability might be a little too crunchy, but I am all for expanding the number of weapons that have them from the three we currently get.
2) More armor and shield types, including ones that get their own mundane "Special" properties. For example, add Spiked Armor to the OneD&D PHB and give it the ability where allowing anyone who is proficient with the armor can use the spikes to make melee weapon attacks (1d4+Str piercing damage). Battleragers would still be a step above others when using this armor because they can make this attack as a bonus action (plus all of their other abilities) whereas any other adventurer would be limited to using it as part of the Attack action.
I think the whip and the blowgun should have special properties.
The whip can be like Indiana Jones where you can use it to grab things, and the blowgun can be silent and thus prevent someone from spotting your location while you're hidden.
The blowgun is also another reason I want poison immunity to become significantly rarer than it is, and why I want holy water to be applied to weapons used against fiends and undead. Because it's clearly meant to deliver poisons with its 1 piercing damage.
For the whip, it could be as simple as "while wielding this weapon, you can attempt to Disarm a creature up to 10 feet away." As for the blowgun, its special property could just be 1/3 of the Skulker feat, where when you attack from a hidden position and miss with the blowgun you do not reveal your position by making the attack.
I was a little disappointed when Tashas came out that they gave us the Poisoner feat to bypass resistances as well as one (or arguably two) subclasses that fit well with the poison theme (Circle of Spores and arguably Way of Mercy), but then gave both of those subclasses damaging abilities that used necrotic damage rather than poison. I agree that in general poison seems unloved as it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yes, I agree, the blowgun being silent so it doesn't give away your hidden position is a super good and easy fix.
Another weird idea , since a blowgun operates by using your breath, would it make sense for it to use CON instead of STR or DEX for the attack and damage rolls? Could make it a fun ranged options for STR builds that make DEX their dump stat but still want a ranged weapon that isnt thrown.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
Munchkins assume they'll have advantage on all attacks from some source or another, and advantage mostly mitigates the accuracy penalty. It's also why any source of "extra" swings in combat is so massively valued, because then they get a chance to bolt on another +10. In real play there's a tradeoff to be made, as a -5 accuracy penalty is quite severe. The higher an enemy's AC the worse it becomes, with more advanced white-room math often favoring regular attacks against boss-like critters. It's more a case of munchkins souring the general populace on what would otherwise be a neat tactical decision in combat - do you go for the Big Whammy on a given attack or do you play it safe? Are you in a position where you need the burst damage, or can you afford to drop an enemy slower? Those are good questions to ask, and a properly tactical player is gonna ask them for each swing. A munchkin, on the other hand, will get pissed off whenever they can't land 100% of their +10 flat damage attacks, and people remember munchkins more than smartly tactical players.
There is certainly some truth to this. 'White room' Optimizers skew a lot of people's perspectives. It makes a lot of 'balance' discussions more difficult.
But I have also had players who do think very tactically, work hard on setting up the best combat advantages, and do end up using Sharpshooter almost every single turn. They aren't 'munchkins' of any sort, just clever. And making the most of the rules that they are given.
I would like to see them making the progression more linear, while still allowing options, and more meaningful decisions.
Part of the problem also is that the penalty (and bonus damage by extension) doesnt scale well. A -5 might be a harsh penalty in Tiers 1 and maybe 2, but once youre in Tier 3 and have things like the Archery fighting style, its not difficult to hit the majority of enemies even with the penalty (unless your DM is exclusively sending high AC monsters at you). I recently completed a campaign that ran up to level 20, and once we got into levels 11+, two of my players had Sharpshooter, and although they would make sure to mention when they were using it, they basically treated the penalty like an obvious choice and free damage boost.
This is a long winded way of me saying I agree that the penalty/bonus damage "called shot" system could use some adjustment if it will be present in any form for OneD&D so that the penalty feels still feels like a risk at higher levels, but the tradeoff feels like it scales to be equally impactful, rather than static. As others said, I think the -PB / +2xPB is a simple and elegant way to achieve this.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
Rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
I don't know. Other than, like you say, it more closely resembles what was always done. (At least it scales slower.) My initial suggestion was a one for one exchange. I think that's still a good bonus, easy to remember, and doesn't make it the obvious choice to use every turn.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
Because a straight −X/+X conversion would almost never be worth it. It has to be juicy enough to be tempting. Think about it, most games end while the PCs stil have a PB <4. 4 extra damage in high Tier-2/low Tier-3 is nothing. In Tier-1, a −2 Attack penalty is kinda crippling.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
Because a straight −X/+X conversion would almost never be worth it. It has to be juicy enough to be tempting. Think about it, most games end while the PCs stil have a PB <4. 4 extra damage in high Tier-2/low Tier-3 is nothing. In Tier-1, a −2 Attack penalty is kinda crippling.
That is true too. Though I will say that the most likely characters to do it will be getting multiple attacks, so it will add up every turn. Using double proficiency, you would reach the current Sharpshooter penalty and bonus exactly at level 13. At least that's much later than it is now. That alone would be a relief. Either way, it would probably take some testing.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
I don't know. Other than, like you say, it more closely resembles what was always done. (At least it scales slower.) My initial suggestion was a one for one exchange. I think that's still a good bonus, easy to remember, and doesn't make it the obvious choice to use every turn.
I'd say its because taking the penalty increases the chances you deal 0 damage by missing with the attack. The reward needs to be balanced against the risk of not dealing any damage, not against the exact value subtracted from the attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
Because a straight −X/+X conversion would almost never be worth it. It has to be juicy enough to be tempting. Think about it, most games end while the PCs stil have a PB <4. 4 extra damage in high Tier-2/low Tier-3 is nothing. In Tier-1, a −2 Attack penalty is kinda crippling.
That is true too. Though I will say that the most likely characters to do it will be getting multiple attacks, so it will add up every turn. Using double proficiency, you would reach the current Sharpshooter penalty and bonus exactly at level 13. At least that's much later than it is now. That alone would be a relief. Either way, it would probably take some testing.
Most campaigns never even get close enough to 13th level to smell it, and at 13th level & higher PCs are insanely powerful anyway.
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
I don't know. Other than, like you say, it more closely resembles what was always done. (At least it scales slower.) My initial suggestion was a one for one exchange. I think that's still a good bonus, easy to remember, and doesn't make it the obvious choice to use every turn.
I'd say its because taking the penalty increases the chances you deal 0 damage by missing with the attack. The reward needs to be balanced against the risk of not dealing any damage, not against the exact value subtracted from the attack.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
Rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures.
Wow, that’s oddly specific… and niche.
It does also mean that if the lawful good paladin who happens to wield a +1 lance for some reason gets a hit in on the rakshasa, it's as good as dead.
This is a very unusual rule. And very specific. But I imagine it is a reference to Rama, god hero known for his skills in archery, who slew Ravana, demon king of the Rhakshashas.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
Rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures.
Wow, that’s oddly specific… and niche.
In 1e, a rakshasa could only be killed by a crossbow bolt a cleric had cast bless on. I guess this is the simplified version.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
Rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures.
Wow, that’s oddly specific… and niche.
In 1e, a rakshasa could only be killed by a crossbow bolt a cleric had cast bless on. I guess this is the simplified version.
Which adds more plausibility to the idea that it's meant to be a nod to Rama (though his weapon is a bow, not a crossbow). His battle with Ravana was earth shaking. But every time he cut off the Rakshasha's head, another grew back. He couldn't kill him until he used a blessed arrow given to him by a renowned sage.
I have to take a minute to mention how weird lances are in 5e. Nothing makes sense about them.
D12 piercing damage
Reach
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren’t mounted.
That all sounds reasonable on the surface. But the fact that you can wield two of them on horseback is pretty silly. Their high damage doesn't require actually moving first to use the momentum of the horse. And because they aren't Heavy, every halfling martial could be running around with one for the best damage weapon available to them. Can't use a 1d10 pike, but a 1d12 lance on foot sounds fine.
Personally, if I as a DM made a rakshasa an important antagonist, I'd probably provide the party the means to access a piercing magic weapon at some point. Obviously without letting them know why the weapon being a piercing one actually matters.
There's no accurate way to model the cavalry lance in D&D. The weapon is, historically, absolutely useless on foot because it was specifically intended for use horseback. That's not how "weapons" in R5e work though, so they had to BS something. Given the limitations of the engine, what they arrived at isn't really any dumber than any other plausible solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For the whip, it could be as simple as "while wielding this weapon, you can attempt to Disarm a creature up to 10 feet away." As for the blowgun, its special property could just be 1/3 of the Skulker feat, where when you attack from a hidden position and miss with the blowgun you do not reveal your position by making the attack.
I was a little disappointed when Tashas came out that they gave us the Poisoner feat to bypass resistances as well as one (or arguably two) subclasses that fit well with the poison theme (Circle of Spores and arguably Way of Mercy), but then gave both of those subclasses damaging abilities that used necrotic damage rather than poison. I agree that in general poison seems unloved as it is.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Very true, Xalthu, good points.
Yes, I agree, the blowgun being silent so it doesn't give away your hidden position is a super good and easy fix.
Another weird idea , since a blowgun operates by using your breath, would it make sense for it to use CON instead of STR or DEX for the attack and damage rolls? Could make it a fun ranged options for STR builds that make DEX their dump stat but still want a ranged weapon that isnt thrown.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That's interesting, I'm going to add variations on Finesse to the master list.
Part of the problem also is that the penalty (and bonus damage by extension) doesnt scale well. A -5 might be a harsh penalty in Tiers 1 and maybe 2, but once youre in Tier 3 and have things like the Archery fighting style, its not difficult to hit the majority of enemies even with the penalty (unless your DM is exclusively sending high AC monsters at you). I recently completed a campaign that ran up to level 20, and once we got into levels 11+, two of my players had Sharpshooter, and although they would make sure to mention when they were using it, they basically treated the penalty like an obvious choice and free damage boost.
This is a long winded way of me saying I agree that the penalty/bonus damage "called shot" system could use some adjustment if it will be present in any form for OneD&D so that the penalty feels still feels like a risk at higher levels, but the tradeoff feels like it scales to be equally impactful, rather than static. As others said, I think the -PB / +2xPB is a simple and elegant way to achieve this.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Why does proficiency need to be doubled on damage?
Adding proficiency bonus to damage rather than attack is an easy, fluid, natural way to get a "Power Strike" option in the game. I fail to see why it needs to be any mathier than that. Perhaps someone can clarify why the doubling needs to occur, outside of "it's always been double the penalty"?
Please do not contact or message me.
Wow, that’s oddly specific… and niche.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't know. Other than, like you say, it more closely resembles what was always done. (At least it scales slower.) My initial suggestion was a one for one exchange. I think that's still a good bonus, easy to remember, and doesn't make it the obvious choice to use every turn.
Because a straight −X/+X conversion would almost never be worth it. It has to be juicy enough to be tempting. Think about it, most games end while the PCs stil have a PB <4. 4 extra damage in high Tier-2/low Tier-3 is nothing. In Tier-1, a −2 Attack penalty is kinda crippling.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is true too. Though I will say that the most likely characters to do it will be getting multiple attacks, so it will add up every turn. Using double proficiency, you would reach the current Sharpshooter penalty and bonus exactly at level 13. At least that's much later than it is now. That alone would be a relief. Either way, it would probably take some testing.
I'd say its because taking the penalty increases the chances you deal 0 damage by missing with the attack. The reward needs to be balanced against the risk of not dealing any damage, not against the exact value subtracted from the attack.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
But anyone else… doin’ it the hard way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Most campaigns never even get close enough to 13th level to smell it, and at 13th level & higher PCs are insanely powerful anyway.
Precisely, the juice has to be worth the squeeze.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is a very unusual rule. And very specific. But I imagine it is a reference to Rama, god hero known for his skills in archery, who slew Ravana, demon king of the Rhakshashas.
In 1e, a rakshasa could only be killed by a crossbow bolt a cleric had cast bless on. I guess this is the simplified version.
Which adds more plausibility to the idea that it's meant to be a nod to Rama (though his weapon is a bow, not a crossbow). His battle with Ravana was earth shaking. But every time he cut off the Rakshasha's head, another grew back. He couldn't kill him until he used a blessed arrow given to him by a renowned sage.
I have to take a minute to mention how weird lances are in 5e. Nothing makes sense about them.
D12 piercing damage
Reach
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren’t mounted.
That all sounds reasonable on the surface. But the fact that you can wield two of them on horseback is pretty silly. Their high damage doesn't require actually moving first to use the momentum of the horse. And because they aren't Heavy, every halfling martial could be running around with one for the best damage weapon available to them. Can't use a 1d10 pike, but a 1d12 lance on foot sounds fine.
Magic daggers are common enough.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's no accurate way to model the cavalry lance in D&D. The weapon is, historically, absolutely useless on foot because it was specifically intended for use horseback. That's not how "weapons" in R5e work though, so they had to BS something. Given the limitations of the engine, what they arrived at isn't really any dumber than any other plausible solution.
Please do not contact or message me.