# Weapon and Armor categories and training in them. Do we still need them?



## Horwath (Jun 9, 2022)

Right now we still have weapon(simple and martial) and armor(light, medium, heavy) categories.

Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them? 

Weapons are no brainer.
Just have all weapons on martial level(with some buff to non-finesse weapons) and have all be proficient in all weapons.
In the end we are talking about 1 point of damage difference mostly.

Just taking up space in class description.
And making some clumsy racial bonuses, that will be traded away in following books if not needed(Tasha 2.0).

Most of the "martial" power comes from class features as Extra attack(s), fighting styles, attack riders(sneak attack, smites, maneuvers, rage, etc...) and investments in strength or dexterity.

and the martial/simple weapon split is also mostly arbitrary with no logic at all:
Shortbow is simple yet longbow is martial? It's more or less the same weapon.
Same with crossbows.

Mace is simple and mornigstar is martial.

And how that the dagger is simple and shortsword is martial. You can throw the dagger but you cannot throw a shortsword. Should it not be more difficult to learn both stabbing and throwing than only stabbing?

Same with light hammer and warhammer or handaxe and battleaxe.

whole table looks as someone stuffed mouthful of weapon plates and sneezed them on a table.


Whole table needs to be cleared a little and made more standardized.

If we have finesse, light, reach and thrown properties, we should know how much they cost(cost is measured mostly in reduced damage die).
Now we see that each property costs more or less one step in damage die. 
Versatile is next to useless so we will tack on versatile on and 1Handed weapon without finesse, light or thrown property.

Then we have:


*DAMAGE**PROPERTIES**EXAMPLE*d10V(d12)longsword, battleaxe, warhammerd8V(d10), ReachSpeard8Finesserapierd8Lightarming sword, handaxed8ThrownJavelind6Finesse, Lightshortsword, scimitard6Finesse, Reachwhipd6Finesse, Thrownchakramd6Light, Thrownthrowingaxe, light hammerd4Finesse, Light, Reachthrowing knife2d82Handed, HeavyGreatsword, maul, greataxe2d62Handedclaymore, waraxe,2d62Handed, Heavy, Reachpoleaxe, pike, halberdd122Handed, Finessefalchiond122Handed, Reachlongspeard102Handed, Finesse, Reachspiked chain

Reach weapons are standardized and little buffed to 40/120ft range.

short/long bows, work fine now. Maybe buff the shortbow range to 100/400 for small races to get some love.

Crossbows should get Action loading time, more cost, more weight, maybe shorter range a little and higher damage dice:


*NAME**DAMAGE**PROPERTIES**COST**WEIGHT*Light crossbow2d62Handed, Range 60/240, Loading; Action75 GP15lbHeavy crossbow2d82Handed, Heavy, Range 80/320, Loading; Action100 GP20lbHand crossbow1d8Light, Range 40/120, Loading; Bonus action75 GP3lb
Crossbow expert feat could reduce loading time to: Action->Bonus action and Bonus Action->Free.


Now, as for armor:

We already have good tool for armor to lose proficiency categories.
Min STR. Just expand on it and make it work for all armor.

Also return variable max dex for all armors. That way, more armors will be a desirable goal, depending on users dexterity.


*ARMOR**MIN STR**AC**MAX DEX**PENALTY*padded8116leather10126studded leather12135hide14144chainshirt14153stealthchain mail16162stealthhalf plate18171stealthfull plate20180stealthBuckler/light shield10+15shield14+23heavy shield/tower18+31stealth, acrobatics, -5ft speed

*Penalty for not having sufficient strength would be:*

Half speed,
disadvantage on all attack rolls.
disadvantage on all str, dex and con checks and saves.
enemies automatically succeed on all saves vs. your spells.
cannot concentrate on spells.

preventing all spells could be too much of a penalty if suddenly you were str drained by some effect.
This leaves option of some utility spells or just "I misty step without my full plate". 
Then you are free to cast spells again, but with -8 AC and maybe a stolen full plate.
Or, I'll crawl around the battlefield and just heal.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Jun 9, 2022)

I personally give my players proficiency in all equipment, but each weapon/armor has some STR requirement. So yeah, if your wizard wants to pump 15 points into STR to wear heavy armors and a maul, good for him. 

its not like having a fullcaster wearing a full plate will break anything, we already have the cleric as a class.


----------



## deganawida (Jun 9, 2022)

Are you advocating for every class to have equal access to all weapons, just efficacy tied to strength?  If so, here's an honest, made-in-good-faith question:  Why not give every class spells, then, as well?


----------



## Dukey (Jun 9, 2022)

If all classes have all weapons and armor, the only difference will be feats for melee and spells for casters. I think that becomes boring very fast.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 9, 2022)

I think that prof in weapons and armor should just be up to players.

"My fighter is a quick gun slinger he doesn't know how to use a great axe or a full suit of chain"
"My wizard was a lumber jack that great axe is easy for him"


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 9, 2022)

deganawida said:


> Are you advocating for every class to have equal access to all weapons, just efficacy tied to strength?  If so, here's an honest, made-in-good-faith question:  Why not give every class spells, then, as well?



Funny how that never goes the other way.  My fighter is trained in arcana, why cant they cast spells again?

Really fighter types should get at will weapon attacks and defensive reaction maneuvers to differentiate their level of training beyond "able to wear/wield without penalty" but sadly that was deemed too complicated for our dumb fighter player brains.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 9, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> Funny how that never goes the other way.  My fighter is trained in arcana, why cant they cast spells again?
> 
> Really fighter types should get at will weapon attacks and defensive reaction maneuvers to differentiate their level of training beyond "able to wear/wield without penalty" but sadly that was deemed too complicated for our dumb fighter player brains.



yeah you could make 4 basic attacks like cantrips and let them choose 2... then you can have 4 sr/encounter ones and let them choose 1 and a daily ability too... and every few levels they can get more sr/encounter or more dailies...


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

I have no horse in the race, but I will point out that it would be a great opportunity to finally kill "studded leather armor," which was never a thing. Add in what they thought they were describing under its proper name and give it the appropriate attributes.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 9, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah you could make 4 basic attacks like cantrips and let them choose 2... then you can have 4 sr/encounter ones and let them choose 1 and a daily ability too... and every few levels they can get more sr/encounter or more dailies...



Wait, you lost me... can I just roll the round die with all the sides and you tell me what happens?


----------



## John R Davis (Jun 9, 2022)

.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 9, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> Funny how that never goes the other way.  My fighter is trained in arcana, why cant they cast spells again?
> 
> Really fighter types should get at will weapon attacks and defensive reaction maneuvers to differentiate their level of training beyond "able to wear/wield without penalty" but sadly that was deemed too complicated for our dumb fighter *player* brains.



Is it even possible for you to comment on this topic without insulting other people?  I ask, because you've been doing it for years.  It gets old.


----------



## Horwath (Jun 9, 2022)

Dukey said:


> If all classes have all weapons and armor, the only difference will be feats for melee and spells for casters. I think that becomes boring very fast.



Well, difference is in larger HD, extra attack(s), fighting styles, attack riders, choice of feats, investment in STR/DEX.

And it will cut down on the cheese: 1st level fighter, then wizard X


----------



## Oofta (Jun 9, 2022)

I don't have an issue with the way proficiencies are set up now and see no value to making PCs ever more generic.  If you want access that you don't currently get, there's a cost.  I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jun 9, 2022)

I'm hoping for them to make a return in later editions with weapon choice mattering to how your character fights.


----------



## Horwath (Jun 9, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm hoping for them to make a return in later editions with weapon choice mattering to how your character fights.



that is now tied to feats mostly.

crusher/piercer/slasher/GWM/PAM/SS/CE/defensive duelist determine how you fight.
add a fighting style for good measure and you have your 5E description how you fight.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 9, 2022)

Horwath said:


> And it will cut down on the cheese: 1st level fighter, then wizard X



that's not "cutting down on the cheese" - it's giving up entirely and just integrating the cheese directly into the core rules. which, i mean, if you don't care about that then ok, but that is what it is.

and honestly i think you could get away with doing the exact opposite (if you wanted to change this at all) - split weapons into categories based on what they are instead of the level of training needed to use them (e.g. swords, axes, polearms (edit - actually maybe spears instead, and make 'polearm' a property that triggers feats like polearm master? or maybe just classify 'polearms' as a weapon of any category that has reach? either i think would be more useful then a polearm category since, for example, poleaxes are both polearms and axes), hammers, picks, bows, crossbows, etc.), maybe add a "simple" trait for weapons any character can use proficiently (like clubs), and then give classes proficiencies based on that (e.g. rogues get swords and short weapons, bards only get swords, barbarians get axes, hammers, and swords, rangers get swords, bows, and crossbows, fighters pick any 3 or 4 categories, etc.). makes it easier to assign proficiencies to classes and gives each class more character in what weapon proficiencies they get since it's more specific. of course, that doesn't matter if the weapons are as samey as they are in 5e anyway, but that's another (and i think the actual) issue. also,


GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah you could make 4 basic attacks like cantrips and let them choose 2... then you can have 4 sr/encounter ones and let them choose 1 and a daily ability too... and every few levels they can get more sr/encounter or more dailies...



4th Edition strikes again!


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 9, 2022)

If anything, I want more weapon and armor categories.  And required proficiency to match them.  

Gimme modified crit ranges and crit effects, weapon bonuses to trip/disarm/defend, and exotic weapons.  Gimme armor that can provide bonuses to stability, movement, or combat that's based on skill instead of magic.  Maybe even build in synergies between weapons, shields and armors.  And always, always, make there be a cost to use them.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jun 9, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> If anything, I want more weapon and armor categories.  And required proficiency to match them.
> 
> Gimme modified crit ranges and crit effects, weapon bonuses to trip/disarm/defend, and exotic weapons.  Gimme armor that can provide bonuses to stability, movement,



Preach it.


Deset Gled said:


> or combat that's based on skill instead of magic.



Not sure what this would look like.


Deset Gled said:


> Maybe even build in synergies between weapons, shields and armors.



Hadn't considered this. Please elaborate.


Deset Gled said:


> And always, always, make there be a cost to use them.



Er... not sure if want.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I have no horse in the race, but I will point out that it would be a great opportunity to finally kill "studded leather armor," which was never a thing. Add in what they thought they were describing under its proper name and give it the appropriate attributes.



I would rather "reenforced leather jacket" take it's spot... if we are making things up we need to make it cooler


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would rather "reenforced leather jacket" take it's spot... if we are making things up we need to make it cooler



Oh it wasn't made up, it was just something else interpreted merely from its appearance.

Edit: Oh hell, there goes my afternoon. So many interesting videos....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 9, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Well, difference is in larger HD, extra attack(s), fighting styles, attack riders, choice of feats, investment in STR/DEX.
> 
> And it will cut down on the cheese: 1st level fighter, then wizard X



not to mention a wizard with the same dex as the fighter has equal +1 hit at every level anyway


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Oh it wasn't made up, it was just something else interpreted merely from its appearance.
> 
> Edit: Oh hell, there goes my afternoon. So many interesting videos....


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 9, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Is it even possible for you to comment on this topic without insulting other people?  I ask, because you've been doing it for years.  It gets old.



I'm clearly talking about myself (as a fighter player) and how paternalistic playtesters decided the fighter needed to be kept simple as a dedicated noob class.


----------



## Andvari (Jun 9, 2022)

I can’t remember which game, but there is one where you just do your class’ HD in damage regardless of weapon choice. So a wizard can wield a sword, but it does 1d6 damage, while a paladin using it does 1d10. Pretty simple.

At least until a player figures out a dagger does the same damage as the sword, but is easier to hide and can be thrown. But you could apply some generalized modifiers to balance weapons. -1 if throwable, -1 if small, +2 if two-handed etc.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 9, 2022)

Its an interesting idea. I'd be in favour of it being developed further.

I do have a few nitpicks about its actual application there however: (Falchions being a 2-handed weapon. The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place. Needing to be stronger to wear plate than you do to wear chain mail. A suit of plate needing absolute peak human strength to wear effectively. Etc.)


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 9, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place.



...longswords. that's. that's longswords. two-handed finesse weapon. that's literally just a longsword.
but yeah i didn't even look at the strength requirements for the armors those are ridiculous lmao. 14 strength to wear a hauberk? i'd be surprised if someone with 12 strength couldn't wear plate without...halving their speed. sheesh.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Jun 9, 2022)

Personally I think too many classes get full martial proficiency, martial weapons would be so much more meaningful if classes that got any martial weapons only got say, four appropriate ones, then the few you _did get_ would be more significant, (and a boon to the fighter being the only one to get full access)

Armour classification needs more nuance too but I don’t know what I’d do with that, maybe you could have a max ‘equip weight capacity’ between weapons, armour and shield so unless you’d maxed your strength score you’d have to compromise between the heaviest good armour (in your equipable category) and a light weapon (or vice-versa) or having both a medium weight armour and weapon
Edit: so suppose it works like your max weight capacity is 5+str, simple weapons range from 1-3 weight, martial 3-5, then armour is 1-5 for light, 2-6 for med and 3-7 for heavy, shields are 2


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Jun 9, 2022)

Honestly, if I wanted customizable weapon details, I'd play PF2. (Oh wait! I do!) If anything, DnD should go the way of 13th Age and make weapons and armor _simpler_ and more re-fluff-able by just having the numbers assigned by class'

ie:
Paladin: AC = 14+prof
Weapons: 2-handed: 2d6+str (or 1d10+str for reach weapons)
1-handed: 1d8+str
ranged: 1d6


----------



## Horwath (Jun 9, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Its an interesting idea. I'd be in favour of it being developed further.
> 
> I do have a few nitpicks about its actual application there however: (Falchions being a 2-handed weapon. The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place. Needing to be stronger to wear plate than you do to wear chain mail. A suit of plate needing absolute peak human strength to wear effectively. Etc.)



those are put there for balance.

To give STR value over DEX.

So that for AC, you either invest in DEX or STR.

Also, falchion was just an example.
And, finesse weapons cannot be Heavy, so you are losing possibly 2 damage steps with 2Handed weapon.
d12 finesse 2Handed weapon vs. d8 finesse 1Handed weapon, seems about right.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jun 9, 2022)

*Rock Hard Abs*

You add STR instead of DEX to your AC while shirtless.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 9, 2022)

Andvari said:


> I can’t remember which game, but there is one where you just do your class’ HD in damage regardless of weapon choice. So a wizard can wield a sword, but it does 1d6 damage, while a paladin using it does 1d10. Pretty simple.
> 
> At least until a player figures out a dagger does the same damage as the sword, but is easier to hide and can be thrown. But you could apply some generalized modifiers to balance weapons. -1 if throwable, -1 if small, +2 if two-handed etc.



It's not like the monk's fists are bigger or sharper than anyone else's, they just use them better. HP, Armor, Damage, etc are all abstractions anyways.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 9, 2022)

Next thing you'll be telling me is that all pole arms are the same...


----------



## Shiroiken (Jun 9, 2022)

Absolutely a NO for me. I want armor and weapons to become more meaningful, not less. While your armor table starts to move in my direction, I'd rather have a proficiency requirement for_ each _armor, not a category.



Vaalingrade said:


> I'm hoping for them to make a return in later editions with weapon choice mattering to how your character fights.



Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.


ehren37 said:


> I'm clearly talking about myself (as a fighter player) and how paternalistic playtesters decided the fighter needed to be kept simple as a dedicated noob class.



I remember the contentious debates during the playtest. Given that I started in 1E, where the PHB assumes the player can read and figure out some rather complicated charts (e.g. weapon vs AC), the idea that there has to be a simple option feels condescending to me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jun 10, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.



I'd rather DMs and adventures stopping the annoying practice of randomized treasure or at least make transference of magic properties easy and affordable.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 10, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build.



not sure why you couldn't have both


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 10, 2022)

Yeah, I'd love fighters having maneuvers based on weapon wielded. And more importantly, giving them all the maneuvers, so they arent hosed based on whatever gear they find. 

Suggestions pulled out of my butt, balance untested.

Wide Sweep - Spend an action to attack a number of adjacent targets equal to your proficiency bonus. Requirement: 2 handed axe, sword, or hammer. At level 11 and 15 this attack deals an extra 1d8 and 2d8 damage respectively.

Deadeye - Spend a move action to gain advantage on your next ranged attack with a weapon or thrown object. At 11th level you ignore cover. At 15th level you ignore intervening objects and structures (or whatever language is necessary to let you ricochet shots around corners). 

Armiger Defense - Action Requirement: Wearing Heavy Armor or using a Shield  - Until your next turn, reduce B/P/S damage by your proficiency bonus plus your strength or constitution modifier (whichever is higher). If this reduces the damage received to zero, you may make a melee attack. You may only make one such attack against any individual each round. At level 11 and 15 the damage reduction increases by 3 and 6 respectively.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jun 10, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them?



No they haven't, and no you can't. 

Ok, you _can_ obviously if you want to, but I don't even like how simple they made them in 5E. 

I prefer individual weapons proficiencies because, let's be honest:

1) nobody knows how to use all weapons
2) most PCs (IME) have 2-4 weapons at most they use regularly.

As for armor, you do train in that as well. How to put it on, get used to its weight and balance, learn to maintain it, and most importantly how it is best used to protect you and just how far that protection extends.

I don't know if individual armor proficiencies would be necessary, but the three groups in 5E are distinct enough without going overboard IMO.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

I appreciate the attempt to balance the weapons and armours logically. The official ones are a bit of a mess. With armours particularly there are just a lot of utterly pointless choices. 

But I don't understand or approve the idea of getting rid of proficiencies. Having proficiencies allows us to have some weapons and armour that are better, the cost just is that you need a proficiency to use them. Also, the armour and weapon proficiencies are in the purview of the martial classes, so just giving their stuff to everyone for free seems really unfair. Martials really don't have too much unique stuff!


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I have no horse in the race, but I will point out that it would be a great opportunity to finally kill "studded leather armor," which was never a thing. Add in what they thought they were describing under its proper name and give it the appropriate attributes.




You can add these to your game if you want:





Based on actual historical armors (even if you don't agree with the stats I put with them   )...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 10, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Is it even possible for you to comment on this topic without insulting other people?




*Mod Note:*
_First off, I think you misunderstood.  The post seems to be saying that the __designers thought folks playing fighters weren't smart or didn't want complexity.

Second, even if they were being__ insulting, making the discussion about them is unlikely to be helpful._


----------



## Horwath (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I appreciate the attempt to balance the weapons and armours logically. The official ones are a bit of a mess. With armours particularly there are just a lot of utterly pointless choices.
> 
> But I don't understand or approve the idea of getting rid of proficiencies. Having proficiencies allows us to have some weapons and armour that are better, the cost just is that you need a proficiency to use them. Also, the armour and weapon proficiencies are in the purview of the martial classes, so just giving their stuff to everyone for free seems really unfair. Martials really don't have too much unique stuff!



I agree that martials get fewer "unique" stuff, but weapons and armor proficiency are not that special.

And how is martials niche will be affected if wizard has a greatsword proficiency?

Let's take 5th level wizard and 5th level barbarian.
And give wizard highly unlikely 14 STR.
Barbarian will have 18 STR as expected.
VS. AC15 target. Barbarian uses rage and reckless attack(as they do 99% of the time)

greatsword(2d6);

wizard: DPR; 4,5
barbarian: DPR; 21,84

I dont see barbarian losing too much sleep over wizard that is doing 1/5th the damage with the same weapon.
wizard will do DPR; 6,6 with firebolt.


----------



## delericho (Jun 10, 2022)

I'm also in the camp of wanting to keep simple/martial weapon and light/medium/heavy armour proficiencies.

There are two changes I would make: I would get rid of classes with specific weapons being listed - if a class is proficient with _any_ martial weapon, I'd just give them proficiency with _all _martial weapons; but I'd also drop some of the existing proficiencies. In particular, if proficiency represents those things a character is especially good at, I wouldn't give Wizards or Sorcerers any weapon proficiencies.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 10, 2022)

If anything we need MORE ARMOR and WEAPON categories.

WEAPON: basic, simple, martial, superior, exotic

ARMOR: light medium heavy superheavy

My barbarian, GORE! and his/her 1d14 doomaxe and beasthide armor appreciates it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2022)

I could get behind more categories. 2e’s weapon grouping rules worked well. And I could see having more impact for different weapon types. But it’s hard to do that without getting fiddly.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 11, 2022)

Hussar said:


> I could get behind more categories. 2e’s weapon grouping rules worked well. And I could see having more impact for different weapon types. But it’s hard to do that without getting fiddly.



I could see shifting many can't fail weapons like daggers and clubs to a Simple category for wizards and commoners as well as creation of some "wackier" and niche weapons like scythes, spiked chains, war-staffs, and double weapons to a Superior or Exotic categry that only fighters start with access to.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2022)

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a rules module where your weapon damage is based on your class and level.  Similar to how cantrips work for casters.  A wizard using a longsword still only deals d4 damage while that high level fighter deals 4d8.  Just do away with weapon proficiencies entirely and scrap extra attacks while we're at it.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 11, 2022)

ReadyButNot said:


> ...longswords. that's. that's longswords. two-handed finesse weapon. that's literally just a longsword.



Eh. The entire reason to put both hands on a weapon is to improve the force and leverage you can exert on it. However force and leverage are functions of Strength, and by definition don't do anything for finesse weapons, which apparently are dependent upon the grace and balance of their user, not force and leverage. 

All else being equal, the stronger you are, the better you can use a longsword. You have more control over the blade in terms of changing its direction, your cuts are faster and shorter, giving your opponent less time to react, and you can control your opponent's weapon more effectively. Dexterity is useful, but more for defence, which is already covered in the mechanics.



> but yeah i didn't even look at the strength requirements for the armors those are ridiculous lmao. 14 strength to wear a hauberk? i'd be surprised if someone with 12 strength couldn't wear plate without...halving their speed. sheesh.



Yep. I don't think that that level of restriction is necessary to martial-type characters. The current 5e requirements aren't very realistic either, but may be worth keeping for balance's sake. Pushing a secondary ability score above 14 is fairly rare in my experience and does have a cost associated with it, so requiring much higher is unnecessary in my book. There is an argument for requiring a Constitution requirement instead/as well in terms of realism, but probably not worth implementing.



Horwath said:


> those are put there for balance.
> 
> To give STR value over DEX.
> 
> ...



Yep. I understand the intent. I just don't think that I could reasonably tell a player that their reasonably-strong character can't effectively use that plate harness when most of them have seen me wear/worn one themselves.
Likewise most of them know that a falchion is a chopping blade used in one hand rather than a two-handed weapon. 
I'd end up with a table full of LARFers and hysterical re-enactors.

But like I said, these are just nitpicks. I could just rename the armours, squashing down the real ones and introducing some fantastical types that would actually require massive strength to wear for that table if I was going to use it and thought that a strength that high was required for balance. 



> And, finesse weapons cannot be Heavy, so you are losing possibly 2 damage steps with 2Handed weapon.
> d12 finesse 2Handed weapon vs. d8 finesse 1Handed weapon, seems about right.



It was a conceptual issue; I wasn't criticising your maths or judgement of balance. 



ehren37 said:


> It's not like the monk's fists are bigger or sharper than anyone else's, they just use them better. HP, Armor, Damage, etc are all abstractions anyways.



I agree with the overall point, but monks are magical: That is how they can bypass some physical restrictions. Getting more magical could explain their increased martial arts damage die.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jun 11, 2022)

And so the unending tide of reductionism marches on...

Edit: To be clear, no, I don't like these ideas. I think this is just another instantiation of the obsession with brevity and the belief that if less is more then none is everything.

These things still have value. Devaluing them further is not the answer.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 11, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I'd LOVE to see a rules module where your weapon damage is based on your class and level.  Similar to how cantrips work for casters.  A wizard using a longsword still only deals d4 damage while that high level fighter deals 4d8.  Just do away with weapon proficiencies entirely and scrap extra attacks while we're at it.



I think this should be a fighter and barbarian class feature. 

Power strike: When you take the attack action, you can give up your addition attacks from Extra Atracks to add additional damage dice.


Fighter: Roll your weapon dice 2 times for each extra attack.

Barbarian: Roll 1d12 for each extra attack.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 11, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Eh. The entire reason to put both hands on a weapon is to improve the force and leverage you can exert on it. However force and leverage are functions of Strength, and by definition don't do anything for finesse weapons, which apparently are dependent upon the grace and balance of their user, not force and leverage.
> 
> All else being equal, the stronger you are, the better you can use a longsword. You have more control over the blade in terms of changing its direction, your cuts are faster and shorter, giving your opponent less time to react, and you can control your opponent's weapon more effectively. Dexterity is useful, but more for defence, which is already covered in the mechanics.



ok, counterpoint - rapiers exist. the average weight of a rapier is about 1 kg - the average weight of a longsword is about 1.1-1.8 kg, but we'll settle at the median of 1.5 (well, it's actually 1.45, but i'm choosing to round up, you'll see why in a second). it's estimated that having a second hand on a melee weapon increases your effective strength with that weapon by about 50% (this is why 3e let you add half your strength again to attacks made with a weapon you were wielding with two hands). 50% of 1 kg is 0.5 kg, and 1 kg plus 0.5 kg is...exactly 1.5 kg. coincidentally, this also works almost identically with dnd's weapon table - rapiers are 2 lb, longswords are 3, you can do math. it'd be reasonable then, i'd say, to consider two-handing a longsword (or, at least, the kind of longsword dnd seeks to represent and lighter ones) to be approximately equal to using a rapier in terms of finesse.

or, in other words - yes, two-handing a weapon is meant to give you leverage. for at least longswords, that leverage significantly lessens the need to be strong in order to fight effectively with it. hence, two-handed finesse weapon.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jun 11, 2022)

I'll chime in on the longsword finesse issue:

Our house-rule (and in our Mod) is that any versatile weapon when used with two hands can either:
1. gain the increased damage die size OR
2. gain the finesse property.

Ya can't do both, however.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 12, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I think this should be a fighter and barbarian class feature.
> 
> Power strike: When you take the attack action, you can give up your addition attacks from Extra Atracks to add additional damage dice.
> 
> ...



 This would be rather worse than having the extra attacks.



ReadyButNot said:


> ok, counterpoint - rapiers exist. the average weight of a rapier is about 1 kg - the average weight of a longsword is about 1.1-1.8 kg, but we'll settle at the median of 1.5 (well, it's actually 1.45, but i'm choosing to round up, you'll see why in a second). it's estimated that having a second hand on a melee weapon increases your effective strength with that weapon by about 50% (this is why 3e let you add half your strength again to attacks made with a weapon you were wielding with two hands). 50% of 1 kg is 0.5 kg, and 1 kg plus 0.5 kg is...exactly 1.5 kg. coincidentally, this also works almost identically with dnd's weapon table - rapiers are 2 lb, longswords are 3, you can do math. it'd be reasonable then, i'd say, to consider two-handing a longsword (or, at least, the kind of longsword dnd seeks to represent and lighter ones) to be approximately equal to using a rapier in terms of finesse.
> 
> or, in other words - yes, two-handing a weapon is meant to give you leverage. for at least longswords, that leverage significantly lessens the need to be strong in order to fight effectively with it. hence, two-handed finesse weapon.



 I got the impression that then the designers thought "Rapier", they had the image of a smallsword: the sort of thing that you see used in The Princess Bride or Pirates of the Caribbean rather than the historical rapier. (In the same way that the D&D longsword doesn't completely match up the the historical longsword.) You're perfectly correct in that an actual rapier requires more strength than a longsword.
Finesse has a somewhat  . . . fuzzy existence, but I view it as being required to allow characters that fit in with some popular media tropes to be optimised. 
My personal determination as to whether I think of a weapon as Finesse is the Bruce/Bilbo test: - Assuming that Bruce Lee and Bilbo Baggins have the same skill, and high dexterity, but Bruce has a strength score almost as high, whereas Bilbo's Str is relatively low. If you would imagine the weapon being more effective in Bruce Lee's hands, then power and athleticism have a role to play in its use, and it is probably not finesse.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 12, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I got the impression that then the designers thought "Rapier", they had the image of a smallsword: the sort of thing that you see used in The Princess Bride or Pirates of the Caribbean rather than the historical rapier. (In the same way that the D&D longsword doesn't completely match up the the historical longsword.) You're perfectly correct in that an actual rapier requires more strength than a longsword.



i mean, maybe, but i also have the impression that if you corrected the designers they wouldn't exactly care. at this point, we're really getting into speculation.


Cap'n Kobold said:


> Finesse has a somewhat  . . . fuzzy existence, but I view it as being required to allow characters that fit in with some popular media tropes to be optimised.
> My personal determination as to whether I think of a weapon as Finesse is the Bruce/Bilbo test: - Assuming that Bruce Lee and Bilbo Baggins have the same skill, and high dexterity, but Bruce has a strength score almost as high, whereas Bilbo's Str is relatively low. If you would imagine the weapon being more effective in Bruce Lee's hands, then power and athleticism have a role to play in its use, and it is probably not finesse.



i mean, by that logic the finesse property shouldn't exist, because i'd imagine bruce lee's athleticism makes him better with any melee weapon then bilbo (which, perhaps, lends itself to your assertion that the finesse property is fuzzy). i don't really think we're going to come to an agreement here, which is fine, but it seems to be a distraction for the thread at large.



DND_Reborn said:


> I'll chime in on the longsword finesse issue:
> 
> Our house-rule (and in our Mod) is that any versatile weapon when used with two hands can either:
> 1. gain the increased damage die size OR
> ...



based...?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jun 12, 2022)

ReadyButNot said:


> based...?



Having two-hands on a weapon allows you better control/precision (allowing for DEX) or more leverage/power (increased damage die).


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 12, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> This would be rather worse than having the extra attacks.



What about +3W

2 attacks at Weapon dice +Ability Modifier damage.

OR

1 attack at 4*Weapon dice + Ability  Modifier damage.

I'm too Saturday to do the math right now.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 12, 2022)

I don't have an opinion on the mechanics presented in the OP, but I do think the entire subject of the threat underscores the question "What is D&D for?" Is it to tell rollicking adventure stories? Is it to immerse oneself in a fantasy world? Is it to test one's tactical and strategic gameplay skills? Is it to provide a loose framework around which we can bs with our friends over beers and pizza?

Of course it is all of these things to some degree or another, depending on the needs and the desires of the participants. But I think WotC kind of needs to decide what it is, and build it to suit that, because right now it is quite confused. There are "simulation" elements lingering in a system that is mostly built around abstract light gameplay, but then also some relatively granular tactical aspects thrown in.

If they really want a game that does all the things well, they need to deliver the modularity they promised, so one table can play their medieval fantasy simulator while another table plays their Tory generator engine and a third engages in detailed turn based tactics.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2022)

Heh. A Tory generator engine. Just so many jokes. 

But I do agree with your point. WotC is trying thread a needle and apparently trying to do it in a windstorm while the tread is on fire. No easy task and one I certainly do not envy.


----------



## LordEntrails (Jun 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them?



No & No. Except you can at your table anytime you want and you don't need our permission.

That said, I think this thread (along with the obvious success of 5E) shows that the designers got it right, or close to right. When you stand in the middle, and you have people arguing for more and others for less, then it pretty much means you got in the middle. And if you want a commercial success, aiming for the middle is usually the right choice.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 12, 2022)

OK. Back to discussing the OP:


Horwath said:


> Now, as for armor:
> 
> We already have good tool for armor to lose proficiency categories.
> Min STR. Just expand on it and make it work for all armor.
> ...



If I'm reading this right, there is no longer an AC benefit for going Str-based rather than Dex-based. 
This table keeps the max AC through armour at 18, but lets a Dex-based character hit the same AC without needing to invest in Strength or get disadvantage on stealth. 

What was the reasoning for this change from the current system?


----------



## Horwath (Jun 12, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> OK. Back to discussing the OP:
> 
> If I'm reading this right, there is no longer an AC benefit for going Str-based rather than Dex-based.
> This table keeps the max AC through armour at 18, but lets a Dex-based character hit the same AC without needing to invest in Strength or get disadvantage on stealth.
> ...



Well, the armor table can be worked on to make more balance between STR and DEX, maybe full can be at 18 STR with 19 AC and max dex of 0.
Or raise also min STR form lightest armor to 10.

And the change was, to stop fiddling with armor proficiency categories with classes and subclasses.

Also it punishes dumping STR as you are more limited in armor selection, and with min DEX for all armors it also punishes dumping DEX.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> and with min DEX for all armors it also punishes dumping DEX.



what dnd edition are you playing where you feel a need to punish dumping DEX even more


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Jun 13, 2022)

Two things: I think it would be good if there were more types of shield available, and changing the distribution of shield proficiency so that it isn’t basically synonymous with medium armour proficiency

Let shields be more than just a flat + to AC unless you’ve taken some specific feat or class feature, let there be things like:
Spiked shields that deal small amounts of damage when you block a melee attack
Magic shields that can block or are especially effective against spells
Throwing shields that can be sacrificed in battle to used like a ranged weapon
Specialised shields that are more effective against some types of damage but more vulnerable against others
Shields that aren’t a flat bonus but boost your AC off your INT or WIS mod or half-proficiency bonus to show how a certain amount of skill is needed to use those particular shields to their potential

And I think it makes sense letting shields be their own thing rather than part 2 of medium armour,
Maybe the fighter and paladin gets heavy armour and shields but cleric only has heavy
Maybe Ranger only has medium armour
Maybe Bards and Sorcerers have light armour and shields


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jun 13, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Maybe the fighter and paladin gets heavy armour and shields but cleric only has heavy



i'd let clerics keep shields, cleric with a shield is pretty iconic


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Jun 13, 2022)

ReadyButNot said:


> i'd let clerics keep shields, cleric with a shield is pretty iconic



See I’d associate paladins more with shields because of being ‘big armoured holy defenders’ whereas clerics are more ‘weapon in one hand and casting/holy symbol in the other’ to me but I was more just throwing out random examples than suggesting anything specific


----------

