This is a game with dragons and people who can throw giant fireballs with a tiny bit of bat poop, so the following question is asked with perspective in mind:
Should realistic combat styles have a mechanical benefit?
As in, should weapons being used the way they were designed in our world be mechanically superior to those that only existed for entertainment?
A thing that I love about 5e's combat styles in the PHB is how there's a Fighting Style for each kind of weapon, and a feat to accent each fighting style. People were frustrated that thrown weapons didn't have anything until TCE, but nobody would actually throw daggers on the battlefield. In a circus sure, but not in combat. Right now I'm thinking about double-bladed weapons which only exist for entertainment purposes.
Should double bladed weapons be statted out inferiorly to standard weapons, only able to become equal to normal weapons with an extra feat?
This is matter of taste. The purpose is to have fun - for some, they should be statted according to entertainment. That's why we play at a fantasy game, isn't it? To be able to do unrealistic things and have fun with it? Others would find them jarring and it just ruins it for them. Personally, I prefer that all weapons, once you account for resource cost, to be balanced and merely have different advantages. I'm sure there are other philosophies too.
And that's the issue, there are different ways of approaching this and they're all equally valid, it's all taste - and so there is no one universal answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I see no reason why they should - striving toward “realism” by introducing mechanical complexity is a losing game, particularly in a world where realism can be dispelled pretty easily with Prestidigitation or the like.
This change would result in a number of poor outcomes, ranging from players just not using these weapons (and the last thing 5e melee characters need are fewer viable options for their incredibly linear design) to players being frustrated because they have to keep looking up some esoteric rule applicable to no other set of weapons. The benefit—realism—would only be to a limited number of players who care about that kind of thing in their fantasy game.
And it does seem that those who favour “realism” are in the minority. 5e is the second least “realistic” edition of D&D, after the much (unfairly) maligned 4e. Though there are also other elements at play, the fantastical nature of 5e, captured in a manner that removes a bunch of the busywork included for “realism” in prior editions, has really caused the game to explode in popularity, indicating those "realism for realism’s sake” elements were holding the game back.
Now, if one wanted to homerule something for realism, and has the consent of their players to do so, that would be one thing - but the default should lend itself toward mechanical simplicity, depth of viable options, and the fantastical, since that’s an important part of both accessible game design and fantasy.
Personally, I think double bladed weapons are silly. IIRC, they came out in 3e right around the same time as Darth Maul hit the movie screens, and I always thought of them as someone on the design team living out a Star Wars fantasy. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) Though they may have been a late 2e-invention.
People like them, and that’s cool, not trying to say their fun is wrong, just not for me.
But to answer the question, it does seem like they should require a feat. If only to learn how to use it to hit someone with one end without hitting yourself with the other end. It’s far more complicated than a regular sword for that reason.
People were frustrated that thrown weapons didn't have anything until TCE, but nobody would actually throw daggers on the battlefield. In a circus sure, but not in combat. Right now I'm thinking about double-bladed weapons which only exist for entertainment purposes.
I mean fire breathing is literally also just for circuses. Should we nerf dragonborn too?
This is not Microsoft Medieval Combat Simulator 2022. I want to make heroes that do cool stuff. Sometimes that cool stuff is something you can't do in the real world. I don't need anime-level, planet-cracking swords, but if anything martial combat needs to be even less realistic than it is now to keep up with the magic side which has absolutely no one trying to impose "realistic" limits on it.
The only balance weapons need is ensuring that all types have enough support to meet a baseline of effectiveness. You should not have to burden your party in order to roleplay a class of weapons that are presented as viable in the PHB.
I would probably do double weapons the way SW5E handles them. If held in both hands, you can bonus action to do an extra attack similar to twf, requiring a fighting style etc to add your stat bonus to the damage.
I'm not concerned with making things realistic, so long as all weapon types are relatively balanced and viable I'm good. Your training to make sure you don't hurt yourself comes with being proficient in that weapon, ie you're trained to use it effectively. I don't think you should need anything more than that.
I don't need anime-level, planet-cracking swords, but if anything martial combat needs to be even less realistic than it is now to keep up with the magic side which has absolutely no one trying to impose "realistic" limits on it.
Okay, I'll stop work on the Buster Sword lol
Yeah, I was running through the math for a two bladed sword and comparing it to a greatsword. The problem decreases with tiers, but it still exists.
I'm a really big fan of the two-sided scimitar design, letting you use it on your bonus action to deal 1d4. I hate how this works with two-weapon fighting, but for double sided weapons, effectively matching Polearm Master's attack is awesome!
I want to upgrade it from 2d4 to 1d6 on each hit, but that means on two successes, you're actually hitting for your strength mod more than a greatsword which is already the cap in damage at effectively 10 per round at level 1 (7+3 str bonus). A two-sided shortbsword would deal 13, which is a big jump. This difference is why you can't apply your proficiency bonus to two weapon fighting without the fighting style, and why dueling has a +2 damage feat to allow it to average out to the same as a lance (still less than a greatsword). Part of me says not to worry that much about the math, but I feel like there's actually too much of a mechanical bonus.
Maybe make a Bonus Action fighting style that enables both silly two weapon fighting and two sided weapon fighting.
Only slightly related to the joke I made about Buster Swords, I actually really like them for Artificers, if they resemble Cloud's sword from the movie, where they all Voltroned together. That was pretty cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a game with dragons and people who can throw giant fireballs with a tiny bit of bat poop, so the following question is asked with perspective in mind:
Should realistic combat styles have a mechanical benefit?
As in, should weapons being used the way they were designed in our world be mechanically superior to those that only existed for entertainment?
A thing that I love about 5e's combat styles in the PHB is how there's a Fighting Style for each kind of weapon, and a feat to accent each fighting style. People were frustrated that thrown weapons didn't have anything until TCE, but nobody would actually throw daggers on the battlefield. In a circus sure, but not in combat. Right now I'm thinking about double-bladed weapons which only exist for entertainment purposes.
Should double bladed weapons be statted out inferiorly to standard weapons, only able to become equal to normal weapons with an extra feat?
This is matter of taste. The purpose is to have fun - for some, they should be statted according to entertainment. That's why we play at a fantasy game, isn't it? To be able to do unrealistic things and have fun with it? Others would find them jarring and it just ruins it for them. Personally, I prefer that all weapons, once you account for resource cost, to be balanced and merely have different advantages. I'm sure there are other philosophies too.
And that's the issue, there are different ways of approaching this and they're all equally valid, it's all taste - and so there is no one universal answer.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I see no reason why they should - striving toward “realism” by introducing mechanical complexity is a losing game, particularly in a world where realism can be dispelled pretty easily with Prestidigitation or the like.
This change would result in a number of poor outcomes, ranging from players just not using these weapons (and the last thing 5e melee characters need are fewer viable options for their incredibly linear design) to players being frustrated because they have to keep looking up some esoteric rule applicable to no other set of weapons. The benefit—realism—would only be to a limited number of players who care about that kind of thing in their fantasy game.
And it does seem that those who favour “realism” are in the minority. 5e is the second least “realistic” edition of D&D, after the much (unfairly) maligned 4e. Though there are also other elements at play, the fantastical nature of 5e, captured in a manner that removes a bunch of the busywork included for “realism” in prior editions, has really caused the game to explode in popularity, indicating those "realism for realism’s sake” elements were holding the game back.
Now, if one wanted to homerule something for realism, and has the consent of their players to do so, that would be one thing - but the default should lend itself toward mechanical simplicity, depth of viable options, and the fantastical, since that’s an important part of both accessible game design and fantasy.
Personally, I think double bladed weapons are silly. IIRC, they came out in 3e right around the same time as Darth Maul hit the movie screens, and I always thought of them as someone on the design team living out a Star Wars fantasy. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) Though they may have been a late 2e-invention.
People like them, and that’s cool, not trying to say their fun is wrong, just not for me.
But to answer the question, it does seem like they should require a feat. If only to learn how to use it to hit someone with one end without hitting yourself with the other end. It’s far more complicated than a regular sword for that reason.
I mean fire breathing is literally also just for circuses. Should we nerf dragonborn too?
This is not Microsoft Medieval Combat Simulator 2022. I want to make heroes that do cool stuff. Sometimes that cool stuff is something you can't do in the real world. I don't need anime-level, planet-cracking swords, but if anything martial combat needs to be even less realistic than it is now to keep up with the magic side which has absolutely no one trying to impose "realistic" limits on it.
The only balance weapons need is ensuring that all types have enough support to meet a baseline of effectiveness. You should not have to burden your party in order to roleplay a class of weapons that are presented as viable in the PHB.
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 would probably do double weapons the way SW5E handles them. If held in both hands, you can bonus action to do an extra attack similar to twf, requiring a fighting style etc to add your stat bonus to the damage.
I'm not concerned with making things realistic, so long as all weapon types are relatively balanced and viable I'm good. Your training to make sure you don't hurt yourself comes with being proficient in that weapon, ie you're trained to use it effectively. I don't think you should need anything more than that.
Okay, I'll stop work on the Buster Sword lol
Yeah, I was running through the math for a two bladed sword and comparing it to a greatsword. The problem decreases with tiers, but it still exists.
I'm a really big fan of the two-sided scimitar design, letting you use it on your bonus action to deal 1d4. I hate how this works with two-weapon fighting, but for double sided weapons, effectively matching Polearm Master's attack is awesome!
I want to upgrade it from 2d4 to 1d6 on each hit, but that means on two successes, you're actually hitting for your strength mod more than a greatsword which is already the cap in damage at effectively 10 per round at level 1 (7+3 str bonus). A two-sided shortbsword would deal 13, which is a big jump. This difference is why you can't apply your proficiency bonus to two weapon fighting without the fighting style, and why dueling has a +2 damage feat to allow it to average out to the same as a lance (still less than a greatsword). Part of me says not to worry that much about the math, but I feel like there's actually too much of a mechanical bonus.
Maybe make a Bonus Action fighting style that enables both silly two weapon fighting and two sided weapon fighting.
Only slightly related to the joke I made about Buster Swords, I actually really like them for Artificers, if they resemble Cloud's sword from the movie, where they all Voltroned together. That was pretty cool.