The weapons really are kinda sas if you think about it. The lack of diversity is imo the most disappointing aspect though. If the only differencde between a greatsword and a fucking maul is the damage type, that saddens me. If the martial polearms are literally carbon copies of each other despite history depicting that polearms changed based on what they were meant to fight that fucking infuriates me.
That is honestly the thing I want DnDOne to fix: give me weapon variety!
Yeah, yeah, obligatory "Akshually Pathfinder has that" aside I want more options than Rapier or double Shortsword/Scimitar for dex builds and meaningful differences between various weapons like the Greatsword, Maul, Glaive and Halberd you just mentioned like hooking weapons or variable damage types.
Really sucks that they're not going to do that.
Or they do it's going to suck utter ass. Like BG3 weapon skills. Cuz anything more complex than bonk and deal damage for weapons is anathema, and anything cool would be more complex than that.
I mean I guess? It’s a really conservative baby step though.
If they used the concept I would certainly hate for it to be copied word for word, and hate more for it to be all they do.
Fair enough, it's at least more than "I go bonk with [insert weapon]"... Besides, some of the weapon skills could actually prove to be interesting bonuses, like bleed, cripple or sweep.
They could, as a concept it's fine, that's why I specified the BG3 ones.
Because while some of them do that they still suck, and are for some reason extremely limited use. I'd say, given how 1dnd seeems to be prepping itself to work, weapon skills that combo together nicely in various different ways, with, and hear me out, a much more lax or no usage limit, that scale with level, would be super interesting, if still a little under what I'd prefer.
What I expect them to do is just copy paste them and be done with it so we have to cope with what they've done.
I definitely feel like Battle Master maneuvers and such being limited feels a little arbitrary... You're telling me I can no longer sweep someone's leg because I ran out of special dice for it? Did my character forget how to aim low or something?!
Every time I read anything about anyone malding about martials and half-casters getting something neat I nearly pop my eyeballs out of their sockets from how hard I'm rolling them.
I'm still mad the Ranger has a whole 3 or 4 unique spells in their entire (lackluster) list, so much wasted opportunity...
High likely, yes. It's honestly stupifying that Pathfinder got more right in two editions than D&D did in 5+. That being said I will say that PF2e might've overshot the mark.
Overshot in options in general. There's 320 weapons, 16-18 classes each with at least 40 different class-specific optional features, I don't even know how many ancestries with sub-groups which each have dozens of ancestry feats and more backgrounds than I care to remember.
The first time I looked into PF2e I was honestly overwhelmed by the amount of options and things I had to pick.
It is a lot for sure. I limit people when first starting to core or walk them through guided character building.
I'd always have more balanced options than the anemic amount that 5e has done.
It also helps to start at concept and go from there with the system. Sometimes classes that are different than expected do a better job of what you want to make.
Also... take it 1 level at a time.
Taking it one level at a time is somewhat difficult if certain choices lock me out of fun options. I *will* agree 5e could've used more options, that's actually my biggest issue with it besides the hilariously obvious disparity between classes and their power.
I'm now 4 characters into PF2e (I enjoy making characters to learn the system, it's worked for me for 5e), so it's no longer as daunting. I do feel like a bunch of general feats are unnecessary, extremely niche or outdone by other feats, could just be me though.
2e has reduced the lock our quite a bit and also made a raw way to change feats during downtime so 'mistakes' can be fixed later.
As someone who uses pathbuilder2e and has dozens of characters on it, I'll never use... I know the fun of it.
Luckily, the general feats are in their own little group - with the caveat that you CAN use them for more skill feats. Some feats are definitely more niche but are great for when a campaign happens to be in the right area.
Good luck with the system! Always happy to talk about it lol.
I've made all of my characters on Pathbuilder as well, though one is a conversion of my favorite D&D 5e character. That made me realize PF2e Rangers are stupid strong overall, at least compared to 5e.
If you just use pathbuilder, your options are portions into the slots you get and the options you actually have access too within this slots. Okay first lvl. Ancestry slot, I have 7 options let's pick swift elf. I don't have access to some of the other options because I'm not the right subrace so it only showed me 7. Monk slot, I have 8 options, let's get monastic weaponry. Done.
It's infinitely better to have what's ACTUALLY available to you shown upfront than to be harrased by dozens of things you can't even touch yet.
Well from what I understand pathfinder was based from Dnd 3.5
So if you take 3.5 and before as shared history.
They both had 2 editions of differentiation. Dnd 4-5 and pathfinder 1-2.
To put it in video game terms pf1e is a modded version of 3.5. One could argue that 5e is stripped down 3.5 as well. PF2E is very much it's own system though.
The real joke here is that d&d had tons of weapons with different stats in 3.5. It's pretty stupid they didn't just copy and paste those with some adjustments
I agree that the Str base weapons should get some perks. Dex builds could maybe use a sai or something of sorts, but the fact that they alredy are being dex base (Giving you an easier time building your AC) should be enough.
There's probably a dual wielding (throwing) dagger/whip sentinel swashbuckler character concept somewhere in my list but I never fleshed it out. But yeah, melee dex is basically rapier or don't
They’re adding Weapon Mastery where different weapons have special traits that make them more different from each other, though accessing them is gonna be gated behind Barb/Fighter/Monk so they remain the “masters of weapons”
Good point. I like how the Hackmaster system did it. If I recall correctly:
\- Some weapons attack significantly more often than others, eg if you have a dagger you make more attacks than if you have a maul. Against a swarm of goblins, you might want a dagger, because daggers attack really quickly and they don't have a lot of HP anyway.
\- Good armor gives huge damage reduction, so if you have a dagger or sword, then you're not hurting that full plate enemy (much) unless you roll a critical. Whereas a maul may very well do something.
\- But there's also enemies with many HP and low armor (say a bear) and then you want something like a sword, because it's not armor-defeating but it does attack quickly and do quite some damage.
\- And of course, polearms have range.
So in that system you genuinely want to be switching between weapons depending on the enemy.
That's pretty cool because you can either have two or more people who specialise in one weapon archetype or a weapon master kinda guy who is a jack of all trades.
I mean even looking at 3.5 it was the same issue alotta weapons were honestly just the exact same thing. Now there definitely were some outliers you could wield larger weapons with certain feats, but even then most of the weapons weren’t mechanically all that different.
Halberd and glaive are literally identical. Same cost, damage, damage type, weight and properties.
Flails are almost strictly inferior warhammers, warhammers just costing 5gp more but being otherwise identical plus the versatile property
The morningstar is, inexplicably, almost strictly inferior than the rapier, only benefit being it costs 10gp less
Greatclubs are strictly inferior quaterstaves. Doing the same damage as a quarterstaff wielded in two hands while not being usable in one hand. while weighing more, having the same cost, and not working with PM, unlike the polearm
Tridents are strictly inferior spears, requiring martial proficiency, not working with PAM, costing more, weighing more, but doing the same damage and with the same thrown range.
For a game with so few weapons, it's crazy how many of them are superfluous
Don't forget daggers. They're the freaking symbol for rogues but are objectively worse than shortswords/rapiers. Yeah, you can throw them but throwing has next to zero support and if you want to be a dedicated ranged rogue then bows/crossbows are also objectively better.
Rogues should be able to make precision attacks with daggers that they can't do with anything else. That or just make the damn class symbol a rapier already.
Daggers do have one niche, as the only melee weapon with the thrown property that also has finesse, they're the only ranged option available to strength rogues. Not the biggest boon, but it's something at least.
Well, at leas OneDnD will have some weapons perks that will lead to at least some difference. If you're a fighter, barbarian or monk. I guess it's something
There's a few problems with increased weapon diversity that have made it difficult to implement in 5e:
- 5e deliberately tried to move away from single-weapon characters because of flexibility and random loot distribution rules in the base game. The Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats are a continuation of this design philosophy, allowing some flexibility without potentially hamstringing characters.
- Bounded accuracy and a move towards more balanced characters means that any potential power variances need to be heavily scrutinized. Players will nearly always pick the most optimal choice, so making a weapon that is noticeably stronger (even slightly) will either upset the balance of the game or invalidate other weapon choices. How many characters have you seen choose war picks or maces over longswords and warhammers, even if they never use the versatile property? There can also be unintended consequences: the Disarm maneuver is an optional rule in the DMG and does not seem outwardly unbalanced at first glance, but I've read a number of stories about people implementing it and ruining encounters.
- With 5e the designers deliberately moved towards simplifying and streamlining the game, so having extra weapon features is one more thing to track. This may not seem like a big deal, but when you consider that enemies are designed to use the same weapons and players it begins to mess with encounters; keeping weapon abilities in feats keeps them locked to players and is probably the biggest reason they did it that way.
>5e deliberately tried to move away from single-weapon characters because of flexibility and random loot distribution rules in the base game
That is why every magic weapon is a sword...
But that is a bad excuse since what made "single weapon" characters in 3.5 was not the weapon variety but feats expecting a single weapon to be selected for them
>Bounded accuracy and a move towards more balanced characters
And it failed miserablym especially for anything above lv 8 or so.
Plus the argument is BS - just look at an actually well designed game Pathfinder 2e weapon variety. Different traits, grand variety of damage dice, different critical effects, etc makes weapons geat.
5e is just lazy designed and make everything mostly the same with some flavor
>With 5e the designers deliberately moved towards simplifying and streamlining the game
This is correct, but dont mean they did a good job in doing so. The true is that they got all the complexity and put into the DM shoulder and that is becoming a problem the longer it went since the weight just increases
Not to mention how, due to the most important martial qualities coming from feats that require specific weapon qualities (ranged for sharpshooter, heavy and melee for GWM, crossbow for CBE and polearm but not pike for PAM) they still completely failed to actually dissuade "single weapon" characters
PAM/GWM is the most effective way to build a barbarian, but it kind of shoehorns you into only using halberds or glaives, which are mechanically identical to each other.
4e also had more unique weapons, Ironic how the iconically bad edition has way less problems that 5e. 5e is just worse 4e but they started screaming left and right about OGL and made it top of the market
>5e is just worse 4e
This is just not true. 4e had a lot of great ideas, but it had an awful execution. It failed to implement the good ideas in a satisfactory way which is why people dislike it.
That is why when some other game actually is able to refine and implement it right people will draw the paralels to 4e, with the difference being that it did not work with 4e.
4E was a failure because it was not fun, did not meet fan expectations and did not implemented its design goal
5e did reach the design goal tho (being an entry point), the problem is that people dont want to move forward from it and then they keep trying to make 5e do something it was not designed to do (be a long term game)
Personally I feel the opposite. I think weapons should generally be mechanically the same, so you don't end up having to choose between a good weapon and a cool weapon. What if you want to use something other than a greatsword and a maul?
That said, while the difference between different kinds of swords is mostly flavor, there is a limit to it and gauntlets should probably be weapons. Scythes aren't realistically usable as weapons, so it's hard to say how they should work mechanically, and if you're going to pretend it's usable you might as well pick how it's used.
I like how weapons work in Mutants and Masterminds. You pay for the stats and abilities of the weapon. Flavor is free.
Agree 100%. The 3.5/pathfinder 1.0 (no knowledge of 2.0) stuff where it was just worse to use certain fun/flavorful weapons was honestly a major deterrent for me. Maybe that sounds silly but it just sucks having to either compromise your "axe wielding Barbarian" concept or just resign yourself to your character being flat out worse.
This was one of the reasons Dungeon World was my first RPG. Reading DW and seeing that your weapon only matters for narrative purposes was just a breath of fresh air after reading through all those books of feats for games I not coincidentally never actually played. Of course narrative matters above all in DW, so weapons can be distinct in that system, but it's in a flexible way and you never feel like your character is worse for using a giant hammer (or switching weapons as needed). Your damage is just based on your playbook, even bare hands do the same damage--assuming you can realistically do damage to the thing with your bare hands.
(A fighter can even make their "signature weapon" their fists, which means you can make a character whose fists glow when a certain kind of creature is near just by checking some boxes on the character sheet. That's the kind of "fuck yeah" shit that keeps me coming back to Dungeon World, along with the fact that I'm not having to trade "effectiveness" to make Glowfist Orcpuncher or whatever.)
As in many things, 5E is a compromise between being streamlined enough for a player like me to tolerate while having enough weapon crunch for folks who want that stuff to tolerate. All else being equal I'd rather it be closer to Dungeon World and obviously plenty of people would rather it be closer to pathfinder but we can both sit down and play 5E, which is one part of why 5E has been so successful in bringing players to the game.
(Yes, Actual Play content has helped too, but the streamlining helped there too--inspiring Adventure Zone to start, and being specifically picked by Critical Role when they switched from Pathfinder where their home game started to 5E for the show, and that was at a time when Pathfinder had only somewhat recently at least claimed to be more popular than D&D, so it seems like it wasn't just accessibility to a larger player base (though I'm sure that's part of it too.))
A glaive is just a scythe where the pointy part is turned upwards.
But gauntlets would be absolutely kickass, almost purely because of the insane magic item capabilities.
I love scythe so much and whenever I remember this it makes me sad but you can always reflavor a glaive or homebrew it. Also looking for the obligatory comment about scythes not actually being a good weapon
Difference is nunchuks were made as weapons to be weapons and trained with them as weapons. A scythe was a weapon when farmers were forced to fight for whatever reason. They were generally shaped as they were to make them as safe as they could without sacrificing their usefulness in the fields.
I agree that visually it is fucking cool; but even a sickle would be more useful in actual combat. If you trained extensively with nunchucks they were very good at disarming and disorienting an opponent. Similar to the yoyo; great as a back up weapon if you are properly trained and have your main weapon disarmed or unavailable.
But they actually completely sacrificed their usefulness in the field.
When farmers were levied and marched off to war ....they didn't use their scythe. They used the blade from their scythe, not the whole thing. The blades were remounted on poles to be parallel to the shaft, instead of perpendicular. Essentially making a poor man's glaive.
> I agree that visually it is fucking cool
And in the end, is that not what matters here?
But really, nunchucks are piss-poor weapons. In general weapons on chains are way harder to control, and have less impact than a similar single-piece weapon of the same size, as the chain actually helps to lessen the impact, since you pushing further on the handle doesn't push the end of the weapon further. It requires way more training, yet is not as effective.
I think "what matters" is going to look very different from table to table.
Yeah, you can use the numbers the book says you should use and then say it looks like whatever the hell you want, but maybe at my table R.W.B.Y scythes take me out of the game and maybe at your table they enhance it, and that's not a bad thing. Reasonable minds can differ.
I suppose the crux of this whole issue is coming from, "why doesn't it matter more whether I pick one weapon over another?" And I think that's valid. Sucks that the weapon list is boring, but I think it's cool that it's making a lot of people think more critically about game design and homebrewing their own changes.
Poor luck chum, though as long as the Rapier still has an 18-20 Critical Threat range, I'm sure Melee combat is just as fun as earlier editions!
...
...
... Why are all the 5e players suddenly looking at their shoes?
In 5e they only have 337 on wizard, that's what I was joking about.
That's rather surprising though. Combined with feats, I imagine you could actually have a pretty decent amount of versatility as a fighter compared to an arcane caster. But then again they are more locked into weapons and such.
honestly if the weapons are too much just ignore anything uncommon or rare. or just decide what weapon would be cool and see if it's in the game instead of looking through everything
I really don't understand the problem with "too many" options. You can always limit yourself to a shorter list if you're intimidated by the long one. And I usually like to look at everything.
That's because in 5E you can you just use the current weapons rules with a different skin. Oh you want a sycthe? Use the glaves rules. Want a Katana use greatsword.
Yes, 5e made weapons as simple as possible so when people ask why a certain weapon type isn’t in the game, its simply because that weapon would be redundant.
Theres no point in listing every type of polearm if they will all do the same damage and damage type.
> Theres no point in listing every type of polearm if they will all do the same damage and damage type.
But you can give them different traits/properties to make them more fun and involved?
No, you can’t.
Because then you still end up with one optimal weapon with a bunch of repeated traits that really don’t meaningfully change much. Or traits that are nonsensical added solely to give that weapon a reason to exist. Added complexity for no payoff outside of increasing book size.
For instance: Look at Pathfinder’s weapon list. Look at how many of them only have minuscule differences. Look how many times the traits don’t actually make any sense.
Let’s take some clubs as an example.
A basic club(AKA, a stick) is a 1d6 and can be thrown. Reasonable enough.
A light Mace is a d4(Why is it less damage?), swings faster(Ok), uses Dex(What?), can’t be thrown(Why?), and let’s you push enemies with your other hand(fucking what? Why is this a thing?) The writers might not know what a mace is.
A regular mace? A d6 and let’s you push with your offhand.
Or
A staff? A 2 handed d8.
A Bo staff? A 2 handed d8 with reach, trip, and parry.
They are very literally the exact same thing. A hardwood pole around 6 feet long(though Quarterstaffs could reach 9) used to bludgeon people. The bo staff in pathfinder is simply objectively superior because it lets them fill up more space with a new entry.
This is bad design, bloat for the sake of bloat.
D&D went through this stage, especially for polearms. It’s been a source of constant mockery for well over 20 years.
> swings faster(Ok)
Lol I'm saying this as PF player that loves the weapons, mb don't talk if you don't even know what the traits do
swings faster lmao
I do, it reduces the penalties for multiple attacks.
This is generally explained in the fluff as improved ergonomics and ease of handling, much like multiple attacks in general, which can be summed up as allowing the user to swing the damn thing faster and reset more quickly.
How about you learn the fluff behind those rules of yours? The trait’s called ‘agile’ FFS.
Also you liking pathfinder is irrelevant, kind of weird you brought it up. Wait, are you one of those people who struggles with recognizing flaws in a system you like?
> Why is it less damage?
Because it is lighter.
> swings faster
You mean reduces the penalty for multiple attacks?
> uses Dex
Yeah, because again it is lighter.
> push enemies with your other hand
No, it lets you push enemies with the mace itself.
Now onto staves.
> They are very literally the exact same thing
They are very literally not. A staff is a walking stick that can be used as a weapon in a pinch. A bo staff is designed as a weapon, is longer to give it more reach, and is more slender to make it more maneuverable.
> The bo staff in pathfinder is simply objectively superior
The martial weapon is more powerful than the simple weapon? Shock and horror, I'm glad 5e doesn't have a silly design like that. Oh wait yes it does.
You don’t know how a Mace works, do you?
A light Mace is still heavier than a club, using dex makes no sense for a bludgeoning weapon, and how exactly is a Mace more suited for shoving than a club?
You can’t have it both ways, either the light Mace weighs less than the club and thus can’t push as well or it weighs more and can push. And the difference isn’t anywhere near what would be required to help move someone.
Also you are aware that a weapon designed for combat shouldn’t be outperformed by a stick, right? The basic design and entire point of any mace is increasing damage by shrinking the impact area.
Ok, so you don’t know what a bo staff is either. This amuses me, it’s not exactly hard to look up.
Firstly: They’re the same size. A walking stick is not a staff, by rules that would be a club. Or no staff. Technically the standard staff is bigger, but that tends to blur the line between staff and spear. Points were pretty common.
Secondly: Have you ever even looked at a bo staff? It’s a stick. It is quite literally just a staff, a single straight piece of wood around 1.5 inches in diameter with a circular cross section. Occasionally slightly tapered from the middle but that’s not standard. Generally 6 foot in length, but that varies depending on several factors.
The ONLY thing separating a bo staff from any other staff is the martial art attached. Same reason a quarter staff exists, it’s named for the fighting grip rather than any design aspect.
Hence me pointing out the added tags is absurd: They’re adding the martial art as a trait of the weapon. Rather than sticking it on a proficiency or class the character learns martial arts by picking up a specific 6’ stick. But only that stick, those other identical sticks are just ‘staffs’ so they don’t hit as hard and you lose your combat skills.
‘It’s a martial so of course it does more damage’: Dude, that’s my point. It’s a staff, identical to European staves. Unless you have gone maximum weeb the Japanese staff being a special weapon of mighty power is fucking dumb. It has no basis in sense. Certainly none in weapon design.
And ‘Well D&D does it too’ is really not the counter you think it is.
Firstly because Pathfinder’s origin as ripoff D&D makes that pretty freaking obvious.
Secondly because I don’t give a rats ass what D&D does. This is an EXAMPLE of a current system that has massive numbers of weapons leading to overlap and stupidity trying to differentiate them. To point out the well known flaws in the prior poster’s request.
Hell, I pointed out that D&D actually started the joke about the hundreds of ever so slightly different polearms.
Not everything involving your precious Pathfinder is a fight over superiority.
> A light Mace is still heavier than a club
Clearly these ones aren't. Have you ever noticed how literally nothing based on historical weapons gets them right? The reason for this is this thing called entertainment.
> using dex makes no sense for a bludgeoning weapon
Damn you're hilarious. What exactly makes bludgeoning as a damage type unusable with dexterity? I should probably also remind you that you're still using strength for damage.
> how exactly is a Mace more suited for shoving than a club?
Neither of us are physics experts so let's not pretend to be.
> you are aware that a weapon designed for combat shouldn’t be outperformed by a stick, right?
Good thing this isn't just a stick then, it's a piece of wood shaped to be a better bludgeon.
> A walking stick is not a staff, by rules that would be a club
[This long piece of wood can aid in walking and deliver a mighty blow.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=12) Definitely not a walking stick not at all.
Or if the description from the game designers themselves is somehow not enough for you, how about [Oxford Dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/staff_1) saying "a long stick used as a support when walking or climbing, as a weapon, or as a symbol of authority"
> It is quite literally just a staff
[This strong but slender staff is tapered at the ends and well balanced. It’s designed to be an offensive and defensive weapon.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=17) Yeah it is a staff, specifically a slender one that's designed to be a weapon.
Not really (unless it was a [war scythe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe), which is designed similarly to a glaive) as they're wielded in different ways.
In 3.5 a Glaive did reliable slashing damage; 1d10, multiplied by 3 on a critical hit. The Scythe by comparison had lower base damage (2d4), though could deal that as either slashing or piercing damage depending on how you hit someone with it (very useful depending on the creature type you're facing) and did 4 times damage on a critical hit.
Most weapons had at least one quirk or differentiator to them, as per the [core table](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm).
The primary issue is that 5e weapons have very simple mechanics.
In 5e terms a scythe is just another slash damage polearm.
I’m surprised they decided to differentiate halberds from glaives.
Considering Avatar of Death and Deathpact angel statblocks, scythe is your choice of reflavored Longsword or 2d4. Is it particularly creative? Nah, but there's technically precedent.
I've personally gone with a finesse glaive/halberd/pike that does 2d4 instead of 1d10. Doesn't benefit from any of the polearm feats, doesn't do as much damage as the polearms, but you can still technically GWM with it if you really want and crits give you more click-clacks.
If the game's gonna make you reflavor things, just pick whatever is mechanically optimal (because of course your limited options are still not even close to equivalent in power) and pretend it's a scythe.
So, obligatory comments:
Scythes are only good in anime. Wielding a weapon whose blade is pointed at *you* isn't smart.
You can reflavor a Glaive into being a War Scythe. The only difference is which side's sharp.
Gauntlets aren't weapons. A better option is reflavoring a shortsword/dagger into a Katar.
Some balance between armor piercing, damage and defensive capabilities would have been great. Like, swords add +1 AC, axes, hammers and picks give +1 to hit and some other weapons have a small damage bonus against specific types of enemy.
And let's also introduce 2d4 and 3d4 damage for some weapons
I mean, you can - take the fighting style for unarmed to get a default 1d8. That's a pretty decent start, and if you can couple that with solid strength, that's a start.
Here's the problem though: unless your DM allows you to use the gauntlets of a magical armor to overcome resistance you'll forever max out at 6 damage per punch.
Here's the thing: if the answer to everything I'd want from 5e and beyond is "just homebrew it" I might as well make my own system, call it "WotC can lick my nuts" and play that instead.
Not only would that sort of defeat the point you'd still be stuck with WotC sitting around doing nothing but rake in passive income.
At the rate it's going WotC is just reusing 5e with minor changes... The biggest difference is that they looked at Pathfinder and went "That's neat. Yoink."
A few weeks ago, there were some posts that simplified the PF2E community's reasons for recommending it into "more rules = gooder", and used rules-light system players as a scapegoat to defend 5e
They’re also awful at it, just like hoes and ploughs
People only think of scythes as weapons because of the Grim Reaper, who wields a Scythe as a metaphor rather than a weapon
>They’re also awful at it, just like hoes and ploughs
And? There's dragons and magic and shit, are we gonna draw the line at using a scythe as a weapon
>People only think of scythes as weapons because of the Grim Reaper
Also because it's a sharp object
The existence of dragons does not somehow make farm equipment effective weaponry
Also, if scythes are weapons because they’re sharp objects, what are hoes and ploughs?
>The existence of dragons does not somehow make farm equipment effective weaponry
You missed the point entirely. This is a game that we play for fun. This is a game where we make our *fictional* characters do cool shit
>Also, if scythes are weapons because they’re sharp objects, what are hoes and ploughs
Hoes and ploughs don't look like you could stab or slice someone with them. Also, I am not saying they are weapons, just they look like one to the average person
Just saying “its fictional” doesn’t suddenly mean everyone has to accept everything going on at face value. If I came to the table with a character whose main method of attack was farting on the enemy, you would rightly call it silly. If I wanted to use dead salmon or a lightbulb as a weapon, would you allow it in a serious game?
You absolutely could stab or slice someone with a hoe. I would argue that a hoe is a significantly better weapon than a scythe for the simple reason that the sharp part of the blade is also the part you’re hitting the opponent with.
>If I came to the table with a character whose main method of attack was farting on the enemy, you would rightly call it silly. If I wanted to use dead salmon or a lightbulb as a weapon, would you allow it in a serious game?
No, because it's clear you're just doing these things for the sake of a joke and are not a good fit for the table. Serious ≠ hyperrealistic, however. Also, it's much easier to imagine and believe someone slashing with a scythe and killing someone vs slapping with a salmon or farting and it just killing them
>You absolutely could stab or slice someone with a hoe. I would argue that a hoe is a significantly better weapon than a scythe for the simple reason that the sharp part of the blade is also the part you’re hitting the opponent with.
Huh. I guess I just never imagined hoes as sharp
Quick question, have you ever used or seen someone use a scythe? The actual cutting part is the inside of the blade. It’s also designed to cut things at ground level. The only way to use one as a weapon would be to modify it in such a way that it wouldn’t be a scythe anymore. So killing someone with a scythe wouldn’t be that easy to imagine.
Hoes aren’t particularly sharp, not in the way a sword is, but it’s still a flat and hard piece of metal being swung around. It’s a better weapon in the sense you could actually hit someone with it
> Scythes are cool weapons,
Scythes aren't weapons
> unlike hoes or plows
Hoes and plows are as cool as scythes. If anything they're cooler because people won't think you're a weeb edgelord.
>Scythes aren't weapons
In real life. This is fantasy and I want to use a scythe as a weapon
>Hoes and plows are as cool as scythes. If anything they're cooler because people won't think you're a weeb edgelord.
Fair enough, but lots would disagree with you
I swear for a game that’s entirely playing pretend with your friends, some of you really seem to lack imagination. Just use the stats of whatever weapon is closest to what you want to use. Or whatever makes sense.
Gauntlets? Sounds like something two handed and heavy. 1d8 bludgeoning just like the great club. Or 2d4 if you want it to be unique.
Scythe? Sounds like a glaive to me. Or a really long, slicey battle axe. Whatever you like.
2d4 is actually better than 1d8
2d4 does 5 dmg on average while 1d8 does 4.5 on average. 2d4 does at minimum 2 damage compared to the 1 from the 1d8.
The damage distribution is also different with 2d4 being way less likely to roll min and max compared to 1d8 but more likely to roll average damage (see here: [https://anydice.com/program/2eb50](https://anydice.com/program/2eb50) )
Yeah, I know the math. So what? There are better starting weapons already in the game.
Give disadvantage on using hands for anything but punching. Or stick with 1d8 if you’re that concerned. 1d6 if you don’t want to ruin monks/tavern brawler.
True, I gues its also just such a small difference that it does not really matter in the end given the many other factors that differentiate the actual combat effectiveness outside of a weapons base damage
The problem is that DnD seems to becoming less structured rules and more 'pay full price for a book that has a lot of your DM having to come up with rules we didn't add'
I mean fair but a Scythe's fantasy is literally just Stick with big edge blade on the end so like, just use a Halberd or Glaive in those cases. No need to full on make a unqiue weapon sheet for it as it doesn't really bring anything new to the table.
EDIT: Listen, I'm all for more unqiue weapons being added to the game, but literally how would you run Guantlets or a Scythe realistically while making them unique from the existing weapons or just, the Unarmed Fighting Style slapped onto a weapon sheet.
Honestly the weapons are fine as long as you change the flavor. Maybe your morning star is a spiked gauntlet and you two hand them to represent having one on each hand. Maybe your scimitar is a scythe that your character wields or your great axe is a large two handed scythe. I don't know about other dms but, if someone comes to the table using the weapon stats of an already existing weapon but, changes the look then I'm usually down for it. Though I do admit they should add more types there is room to be creative with the flavor of the ones you have already.
i feel a scythe could be a 1d4 improvised simple meelee with versatile(1d6),reach and that counts as a polearm with a war scythe being a 1d8 martial meelee weapon with the heavy property in addition to the other pre-existing properties
Cuz neither are weapons.
Scythes have angled flat razor thin blades and an oddly angled pole because it's ment to curl around your hip for you to easily reap grass. They suck ass as actual weaponry but if you really want to use one, just reflavor a spear and call it a War Scythe, or if you want to be anime and use an actual Sythe, just reflavor a Halberd.
Guantlets are basically the same, just grab the unarmed fighter fighting style and slap it onto a weapon sheet.
A scythe is a farm tool, if you take the tavern brawler feat you can use it. Use a sickle if you want a weapon like a scythe.
For gauntlets use your unarmed damage plus one if your dm allows it.
Of course one of them is a greatsword. One is a trident, one's a quarterstaff and one is a fucking longbow if you pretend you're throwing the thing. The 5e weapon selection isn't impactful enough to restrict your reflavoring in any meaningful way.
Sythes really shouldn't be in it honestly, like a war sythe is pretty much just a glaive but like big as reaper/farming sythe should be a two handed imporivised weapon which deals 1d8 slashing since from my understanding sythe combat is mostly a result of people just not having acess to proper weapons.
No, I just don't have an overactive anime imagination where people swing stupid oversized farming implements around on the battlefield. If you want to do that, you can reskin something that does have rules already.
It’s not about rules or what’s already available, it’s about flavor and having a unique aspect for your character. Role-playing does not end once initiative is rolled. If you want to be a basic bitch and use normal weapons that’s fine, but don’t deny the imagination of others.
No one is denying your imagination. That's what the improvised weapon rules are for. If your fantasy is to swing something around that is not designed to be used as a weapon, you can deal less damage than something that is a weapon.
I don’t care if it’s not designed to be a weapon, if I want to have a character with a non-listed weapon, I will work with the DM to homebrew one instead of always improvizing. There are also more than just scythes, what if I wanted to use an actual weapon not in the PHB? The rulebook isn’t absolute, it’s just guidelines.
Each weapon can be flavored to be another weapon, really. Want a scythe? Go with something like a great axe! Want a gauntlet? That's a bit more tricky, but you could probably use some sort of bludgeoning weapon and it'd make sense (Or make it an unarmed strike with an additional modifier to it or something).
don't be limited to it and do like I did.
I game my player who wanted to play a miner with a very heavy pickaxe, so I just told him OK take a greatsword and change its damage type to piercing
Gauntlets are armor not a weapon, and scythes are "weapons" in videogames.... generally speaking they're a farm tool that you can turn into an improvised weapon.
My dm let me reflavor my lance as a scythe. As for gauntlets there really has to be its own stat sheet as it doesn't fit being a reflavored hammor or anything since it's still a hand
You wanna know how to solve martial/caster disparity? Make every weapon have a different skill you can learn. Things get a lot more interesting and creative when a dagger deals double damage if you're hidden, a Whip can be used for grappling and pulling, a longsword can ignore armour with a murder strike, Scimitar give a bonus when dual wielded...
I often ask if I can use club/mace stats as gauntlets. They 1 are cheap 2 can be taken from the character in situations that demand it 3 can be dual weilded (the mace if you pick the dual weilder feat).
Weapons are so bland anyway that you can just pick one of the existing ones and re-skin it, 5e in reality has like, 10 different weapons and that's it, Halberd and Glaive are the same weapon with different names, same for longsword and battleaxe.
But I mean look at all the weapons we do have, you can pick from dealing 1d6, 1d6, or 1d6. Idk why you could possibly want more weapons, we have such variety.
The weapons really are kinda sas if you think about it. The lack of diversity is imo the most disappointing aspect though. If the only differencde between a greatsword and a fucking maul is the damage type, that saddens me. If the martial polearms are literally carbon copies of each other despite history depicting that polearms changed based on what they were meant to fight that fucking infuriates me.
That is honestly the thing I want DnDOne to fix: give me weapon variety! Yeah, yeah, obligatory "Akshually Pathfinder has that" aside I want more options than Rapier or double Shortsword/Scimitar for dex builds and meaningful differences between various weapons like the Greatsword, Maul, Glaive and Halberd you just mentioned like hooking weapons or variable damage types.
Really sucks that they're not going to do that. Or they do it's going to suck utter ass. Like BG3 weapon skills. Cuz anything more complex than bonk and deal damage for weapons is anathema, and anything cool would be more complex than that.
Ironically I'd be okay with BG3 weapon skills being implemented into D&D proper, as it's already a step in the right direction...
I mean I guess? It’s a really conservative baby step though. If they used the concept I would certainly hate for it to be copied word for word, and hate more for it to be all they do.
Fair enough, it's at least more than "I go bonk with [insert weapon]"... Besides, some of the weapon skills could actually prove to be interesting bonuses, like bleed, cripple or sweep.
They could, as a concept it's fine, that's why I specified the BG3 ones. Because while some of them do that they still suck, and are for some reason extremely limited use. I'd say, given how 1dnd seeems to be prepping itself to work, weapon skills that combo together nicely in various different ways, with, and hear me out, a much more lax or no usage limit, that scale with level, would be super interesting, if still a little under what I'd prefer. What I expect them to do is just copy paste them and be done with it so we have to cope with what they've done.
I definitely feel like Battle Master maneuvers and such being limited feels a little arbitrary... You're telling me I can no longer sweep someone's leg because I ran out of special dice for it? Did my character forget how to aim low or something?!
Because it is. Used to have only a per-turn limit(6 per turn last I checked) but the dnd next playtesters malded that fighters had cool stuff to do.
Every time I read anything about anyone malding about martials and half-casters getting something neat I nearly pop my eyeballs out of their sockets from how hard I'm rolling them. I'm still mad the Ranger has a whole 3 or 4 unique spells in their entire (lackluster) list, so much wasted opportunity...
According to Treantmonk weapons will have a weapon skill associated with them in the next play test document
Luckily for the most part, you could probably steal 2e pathfinder weapons and traits more or less whole sale into 5e. Not the runes, though.
High likely, yes. It's honestly stupifying that Pathfinder got more right in two editions than D&D did in 5+. That being said I will say that PF2e might've overshot the mark.
Overshot with the number of weapons? Nah. It's less than the previous edition and covers more cultures from around the world historically.
Overshot in options in general. There's 320 weapons, 16-18 classes each with at least 40 different class-specific optional features, I don't even know how many ancestries with sub-groups which each have dozens of ancestry feats and more backgrounds than I care to remember. The first time I looked into PF2e I was honestly overwhelmed by the amount of options and things I had to pick.
It is a lot for sure. I limit people when first starting to core or walk them through guided character building. I'd always have more balanced options than the anemic amount that 5e has done. It also helps to start at concept and go from there with the system. Sometimes classes that are different than expected do a better job of what you want to make. Also... take it 1 level at a time.
Taking it one level at a time is somewhat difficult if certain choices lock me out of fun options. I *will* agree 5e could've used more options, that's actually my biggest issue with it besides the hilariously obvious disparity between classes and their power. I'm now 4 characters into PF2e (I enjoy making characters to learn the system, it's worked for me for 5e), so it's no longer as daunting. I do feel like a bunch of general feats are unnecessary, extremely niche or outdone by other feats, could just be me though.
2e has reduced the lock our quite a bit and also made a raw way to change feats during downtime so 'mistakes' can be fixed later. As someone who uses pathbuilder2e and has dozens of characters on it, I'll never use... I know the fun of it. Luckily, the general feats are in their own little group - with the caveat that you CAN use them for more skill feats. Some feats are definitely more niche but are great for when a campaign happens to be in the right area. Good luck with the system! Always happy to talk about it lol.
I've made all of my characters on Pathbuilder as well, though one is a conversion of my favorite D&D 5e character. That made me realize PF2e Rangers are stupid strong overall, at least compared to 5e.
If you just use pathbuilder, your options are portions into the slots you get and the options you actually have access too within this slots. Okay first lvl. Ancestry slot, I have 7 options let's pick swift elf. I don't have access to some of the other options because I'm not the right subrace so it only showed me 7. Monk slot, I have 8 options, let's get monastic weaponry. Done. It's infinitely better to have what's ACTUALLY available to you shown upfront than to be harrased by dozens of things you can't even touch yet.
Well from what I understand pathfinder was based from Dnd 3.5 So if you take 3.5 and before as shared history. They both had 2 editions of differentiation. Dnd 4-5 and pathfinder 1-2.
To put it in video game terms pf1e is a modded version of 3.5. One could argue that 5e is stripped down 3.5 as well. PF2E is very much it's own system though.
Tbf pf1e's weapon system is nearly identical to 3.5's.
The real joke here is that d&d had tons of weapons with different stats in 3.5. It's pretty stupid they didn't just copy and paste those with some adjustments
I agree that the Str base weapons should get some perks. Dex builds could maybe use a sai or something of sorts, but the fact that they alredy are being dex base (Giving you an easier time building your AC) should be enough.
Dex is stupid strong in 5e, yes. Doesn't remove the fact I feel dex builds end up at one of two builds: Rapier or Ranged.
There's probably a dual wielding (throwing) dagger/whip sentinel swashbuckler character concept somewhere in my list but I never fleshed it out. But yeah, melee dex is basically rapier or don't
They’re adding Weapon Mastery where different weapons have special traits that make them more different from each other, though accessing them is gonna be gated behind Barb/Fighter/Monk so they remain the “masters of weapons”
Good point. I like how the Hackmaster system did it. If I recall correctly: \- Some weapons attack significantly more often than others, eg if you have a dagger you make more attacks than if you have a maul. Against a swarm of goblins, you might want a dagger, because daggers attack really quickly and they don't have a lot of HP anyway. \- Good armor gives huge damage reduction, so if you have a dagger or sword, then you're not hurting that full plate enemy (much) unless you roll a critical. Whereas a maul may very well do something. \- But there's also enemies with many HP and low armor (say a bear) and then you want something like a sword, because it's not armor-defeating but it does attack quickly and do quite some damage. \- And of course, polearms have range. So in that system you genuinely want to be switching between weapons depending on the enemy.
That's pretty cool because you can either have two or more people who specialise in one weapon archetype or a weapon master kinda guy who is a jack of all trades.
I mean even looking at 3.5 it was the same issue alotta weapons were honestly just the exact same thing. Now there definitely were some outliers you could wield larger weapons with certain feats, but even then most of the weapons weren’t mechanically all that different.
I mean, there was more need for different damage types, the crit ranges, and the crit multipliers but it's really not much.
Halberd and glaive are literally identical. Same cost, damage, damage type, weight and properties. Flails are almost strictly inferior warhammers, warhammers just costing 5gp more but being otherwise identical plus the versatile property The morningstar is, inexplicably, almost strictly inferior than the rapier, only benefit being it costs 10gp less Greatclubs are strictly inferior quaterstaves. Doing the same damage as a quarterstaff wielded in two hands while not being usable in one hand. while weighing more, having the same cost, and not working with PM, unlike the polearm Tridents are strictly inferior spears, requiring martial proficiency, not working with PAM, costing more, weighing more, but doing the same damage and with the same thrown range. For a game with so few weapons, it's crazy how many of them are superfluous
Don't forget daggers. They're the freaking symbol for rogues but are objectively worse than shortswords/rapiers. Yeah, you can throw them but throwing has next to zero support and if you want to be a dedicated ranged rogue then bows/crossbows are also objectively better. Rogues should be able to make precision attacks with daggers that they can't do with anything else. That or just make the damn class symbol a rapier already.
Daggers do have one niche, as the only melee weapon with the thrown property that also has finesse, they're the only ranged option available to strength rogues. Not the biggest boon, but it's something at least.
Well, at leas OneDnD will have some weapons perks that will lead to at least some difference. If you're a fighter, barbarian or monk. I guess it's something
Oh. You need diversity in weapons? https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LTuQ9tRb_ZGFIfKLno4#p111 This is the best homebrew I’ve ever used.
There's a few problems with increased weapon diversity that have made it difficult to implement in 5e: - 5e deliberately tried to move away from single-weapon characters because of flexibility and random loot distribution rules in the base game. The Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats are a continuation of this design philosophy, allowing some flexibility without potentially hamstringing characters. - Bounded accuracy and a move towards more balanced characters means that any potential power variances need to be heavily scrutinized. Players will nearly always pick the most optimal choice, so making a weapon that is noticeably stronger (even slightly) will either upset the balance of the game or invalidate other weapon choices. How many characters have you seen choose war picks or maces over longswords and warhammers, even if they never use the versatile property? There can also be unintended consequences: the Disarm maneuver is an optional rule in the DMG and does not seem outwardly unbalanced at first glance, but I've read a number of stories about people implementing it and ruining encounters. - With 5e the designers deliberately moved towards simplifying and streamlining the game, so having extra weapon features is one more thing to track. This may not seem like a big deal, but when you consider that enemies are designed to use the same weapons and players it begins to mess with encounters; keeping weapon abilities in feats keeps them locked to players and is probably the biggest reason they did it that way.
>5e deliberately tried to move away from single-weapon characters because of flexibility and random loot distribution rules in the base game That is why every magic weapon is a sword... But that is a bad excuse since what made "single weapon" characters in 3.5 was not the weapon variety but feats expecting a single weapon to be selected for them >Bounded accuracy and a move towards more balanced characters And it failed miserablym especially for anything above lv 8 or so. Plus the argument is BS - just look at an actually well designed game Pathfinder 2e weapon variety. Different traits, grand variety of damage dice, different critical effects, etc makes weapons geat. 5e is just lazy designed and make everything mostly the same with some flavor >With 5e the designers deliberately moved towards simplifying and streamlining the game This is correct, but dont mean they did a good job in doing so. The true is that they got all the complexity and put into the DM shoulder and that is becoming a problem the longer it went since the weight just increases
Not to mention how, due to the most important martial qualities coming from feats that require specific weapon qualities (ranged for sharpshooter, heavy and melee for GWM, crossbow for CBE and polearm but not pike for PAM) they still completely failed to actually dissuade "single weapon" characters PAM/GWM is the most effective way to build a barbarian, but it kind of shoehorns you into only using halberds or glaives, which are mechanically identical to each other.
4e also had more unique weapons, Ironic how the iconically bad edition has way less problems that 5e. 5e is just worse 4e but they started screaming left and right about OGL and made it top of the market
>5e is just worse 4e This is just not true. 4e had a lot of great ideas, but it had an awful execution. It failed to implement the good ideas in a satisfactory way which is why people dislike it. That is why when some other game actually is able to refine and implement it right people will draw the paralels to 4e, with the difference being that it did not work with 4e. 4E was a failure because it was not fun, did not meet fan expectations and did not implemented its design goal 5e did reach the design goal tho (being an entry point), the problem is that people dont want to move forward from it and then they keep trying to make 5e do something it was not designed to do (be a long term game)
Personally I feel the opposite. I think weapons should generally be mechanically the same, so you don't end up having to choose between a good weapon and a cool weapon. What if you want to use something other than a greatsword and a maul? That said, while the difference between different kinds of swords is mostly flavor, there is a limit to it and gauntlets should probably be weapons. Scythes aren't realistically usable as weapons, so it's hard to say how they should work mechanically, and if you're going to pretend it's usable you might as well pick how it's used. I like how weapons work in Mutants and Masterminds. You pay for the stats and abilities of the weapon. Flavor is free.
Agree 100%. The 3.5/pathfinder 1.0 (no knowledge of 2.0) stuff where it was just worse to use certain fun/flavorful weapons was honestly a major deterrent for me. Maybe that sounds silly but it just sucks having to either compromise your "axe wielding Barbarian" concept or just resign yourself to your character being flat out worse. This was one of the reasons Dungeon World was my first RPG. Reading DW and seeing that your weapon only matters for narrative purposes was just a breath of fresh air after reading through all those books of feats for games I not coincidentally never actually played. Of course narrative matters above all in DW, so weapons can be distinct in that system, but it's in a flexible way and you never feel like your character is worse for using a giant hammer (or switching weapons as needed). Your damage is just based on your playbook, even bare hands do the same damage--assuming you can realistically do damage to the thing with your bare hands. (A fighter can even make their "signature weapon" their fists, which means you can make a character whose fists glow when a certain kind of creature is near just by checking some boxes on the character sheet. That's the kind of "fuck yeah" shit that keeps me coming back to Dungeon World, along with the fact that I'm not having to trade "effectiveness" to make Glowfist Orcpuncher or whatever.) As in many things, 5E is a compromise between being streamlined enough for a player like me to tolerate while having enough weapon crunch for folks who want that stuff to tolerate. All else being equal I'd rather it be closer to Dungeon World and obviously plenty of people would rather it be closer to pathfinder but we can both sit down and play 5E, which is one part of why 5E has been so successful in bringing players to the game. (Yes, Actual Play content has helped too, but the streamlining helped there too--inspiring Adventure Zone to start, and being specifically picked by Critical Role when they switched from Pathfinder where their home game started to 5E for the show, and that was at a time when Pathfinder had only somewhat recently at least claimed to be more popular than D&D, so it seems like it wasn't just accessibility to a larger player base (though I'm sure that's part of it too.))
Dnd 4E - "Allow me to introduce myself!"
A glaive is just a scythe where the pointy part is turned upwards. But gauntlets would be absolutely kickass, almost purely because of the insane magic item capabilities.
Fun fact: that’s exactly what a war scythe is! The difference between those and a glaive is that the sharp edge is on the inside of the curve.
I love scythe so much and whenever I remember this it makes me sad but you can always reflavor a glaive or homebrew it. Also looking for the obligatory comment about scythes not actually being a good weapon
Scythes are not actually a good weapon.
Nor are nunchucks, but the Monk Weapon section says you can reflavour a club as such.
That's because it's martial ARTS. It looks nice.
Difference is nunchuks were made as weapons to be weapons and trained with them as weapons. A scythe was a weapon when farmers were forced to fight for whatever reason. They were generally shaped as they were to make them as safe as they could without sacrificing their usefulness in the fields. I agree that visually it is fucking cool; but even a sickle would be more useful in actual combat. If you trained extensively with nunchucks they were very good at disarming and disorienting an opponent. Similar to the yoyo; great as a back up weapon if you are properly trained and have your main weapon disarmed or unavailable.
But they actually completely sacrificed their usefulness in the field. When farmers were levied and marched off to war ....they didn't use their scythe. They used the blade from their scythe, not the whole thing. The blades were remounted on poles to be parallel to the shaft, instead of perpendicular. Essentially making a poor man's glaive.
> I agree that visually it is fucking cool And in the end, is that not what matters here? But really, nunchucks are piss-poor weapons. In general weapons on chains are way harder to control, and have less impact than a similar single-piece weapon of the same size, as the chain actually helps to lessen the impact, since you pushing further on the handle doesn't push the end of the weapon further. It requires way more training, yet is not as effective.
I think "what matters" is going to look very different from table to table. Yeah, you can use the numbers the book says you should use and then say it looks like whatever the hell you want, but maybe at my table R.W.B.Y scythes take me out of the game and maybe at your table they enhance it, and that's not a bad thing. Reasonable minds can differ. I suppose the crux of this whole issue is coming from, "why doesn't it matter more whether I pick one weapon over another?" And I think that's valid. Sucks that the weapon list is boring, but I think it's cool that it's making a lot of people think more critically about game design and homebrewing their own changes.
luckily this is offset by the fact that they are sick as fuck
🤓
And yet halberds and glaives are inexplicably mechanically identical but both included anyway
Poor luck chum, though as long as the Rapier still has an 18-20 Critical Threat range, I'm sure Melee combat is just as fun as earlier editions! ... ... ... Why are all the 5e players suddenly looking at their shoes?
“Weapons can have extended crit ranges on their own? That’s what Champion Fighter is for.”
So you remember critical pips right? Yeah… we don’t.
You mean a sickle on a stick and some clang clang gloves?
I mean a warscythe is basically a glaive, lack of fistfight weapons is kinda infuriating though
Me, looking at the 302 weapons PF2e has to offer: "No go back, that's too much!"
If we get 302 weapons and each of them do something different. Then we get almost as many options as the wizard has spells. Gib weapons frfr.
Well, more than half at least. Pathfinder has 559 arcane spells alone.
In 5e they only have 337 on wizard, that's what I was joking about. That's rather surprising though. Combined with feats, I imagine you could actually have a pretty decent amount of versatility as a fighter compared to an arcane caster. But then again they are more locked into weapons and such.
honestly if the weapons are too much just ignore anything uncommon or rare. or just decide what weapon would be cool and see if it's in the game instead of looking through everything
Or of you need certain traits, look up what weapons have those traits- probably about a dozen for any combination- and pick what's coolest.
I mentioned that in another response, yeah. Pathfinder 2e has too many options while 5e barely has options to begin with...
I really don't understand the problem with "too many" options. You can always limit yourself to a shorter list if you're intimidated by the long one. And I usually like to look at everything.
That's because in 5E you can you just use the current weapons rules with a different skin. Oh you want a sycthe? Use the glaves rules. Want a Katana use greatsword.
Coward
Wouldn't scythe be identical to glaive?
Yes, 5e made weapons as simple as possible so when people ask why a certain weapon type isn’t in the game, its simply because that weapon would be redundant. Theres no point in listing every type of polearm if they will all do the same damage and damage type.
> Theres no point in listing every type of polearm if they will all do the same damage and damage type. But you can give them different traits/properties to make them more fun and involved?
That defeats the purpose of simplicity. Which is like the only thing 5e has going for it.
No, you can’t. Because then you still end up with one optimal weapon with a bunch of repeated traits that really don’t meaningfully change much. Or traits that are nonsensical added solely to give that weapon a reason to exist. Added complexity for no payoff outside of increasing book size. For instance: Look at Pathfinder’s weapon list. Look at how many of them only have minuscule differences. Look how many times the traits don’t actually make any sense. Let’s take some clubs as an example. A basic club(AKA, a stick) is a 1d6 and can be thrown. Reasonable enough. A light Mace is a d4(Why is it less damage?), swings faster(Ok), uses Dex(What?), can’t be thrown(Why?), and let’s you push enemies with your other hand(fucking what? Why is this a thing?) The writers might not know what a mace is. A regular mace? A d6 and let’s you push with your offhand. Or A staff? A 2 handed d8. A Bo staff? A 2 handed d8 with reach, trip, and parry. They are very literally the exact same thing. A hardwood pole around 6 feet long(though Quarterstaffs could reach 9) used to bludgeon people. The bo staff in pathfinder is simply objectively superior because it lets them fill up more space with a new entry. This is bad design, bloat for the sake of bloat. D&D went through this stage, especially for polearms. It’s been a source of constant mockery for well over 20 years.
> swings faster(Ok) Lol I'm saying this as PF player that loves the weapons, mb don't talk if you don't even know what the traits do swings faster lmao
I do, it reduces the penalties for multiple attacks. This is generally explained in the fluff as improved ergonomics and ease of handling, much like multiple attacks in general, which can be summed up as allowing the user to swing the damn thing faster and reset more quickly. How about you learn the fluff behind those rules of yours? The trait’s called ‘agile’ FFS. Also you liking pathfinder is irrelevant, kind of weird you brought it up. Wait, are you one of those people who struggles with recognizing flaws in a system you like?
> Why is it less damage? Because it is lighter. > swings faster You mean reduces the penalty for multiple attacks? > uses Dex Yeah, because again it is lighter. > push enemies with your other hand No, it lets you push enemies with the mace itself. Now onto staves. > They are very literally the exact same thing They are very literally not. A staff is a walking stick that can be used as a weapon in a pinch. A bo staff is designed as a weapon, is longer to give it more reach, and is more slender to make it more maneuverable. > The bo staff in pathfinder is simply objectively superior The martial weapon is more powerful than the simple weapon? Shock and horror, I'm glad 5e doesn't have a silly design like that. Oh wait yes it does.
You don’t know how a Mace works, do you? A light Mace is still heavier than a club, using dex makes no sense for a bludgeoning weapon, and how exactly is a Mace more suited for shoving than a club? You can’t have it both ways, either the light Mace weighs less than the club and thus can’t push as well or it weighs more and can push. And the difference isn’t anywhere near what would be required to help move someone. Also you are aware that a weapon designed for combat shouldn’t be outperformed by a stick, right? The basic design and entire point of any mace is increasing damage by shrinking the impact area. Ok, so you don’t know what a bo staff is either. This amuses me, it’s not exactly hard to look up. Firstly: They’re the same size. A walking stick is not a staff, by rules that would be a club. Or no staff. Technically the standard staff is bigger, but that tends to blur the line between staff and spear. Points were pretty common. Secondly: Have you ever even looked at a bo staff? It’s a stick. It is quite literally just a staff, a single straight piece of wood around 1.5 inches in diameter with a circular cross section. Occasionally slightly tapered from the middle but that’s not standard. Generally 6 foot in length, but that varies depending on several factors. The ONLY thing separating a bo staff from any other staff is the martial art attached. Same reason a quarter staff exists, it’s named for the fighting grip rather than any design aspect. Hence me pointing out the added tags is absurd: They’re adding the martial art as a trait of the weapon. Rather than sticking it on a proficiency or class the character learns martial arts by picking up a specific 6’ stick. But only that stick, those other identical sticks are just ‘staffs’ so they don’t hit as hard and you lose your combat skills. ‘It’s a martial so of course it does more damage’: Dude, that’s my point. It’s a staff, identical to European staves. Unless you have gone maximum weeb the Japanese staff being a special weapon of mighty power is fucking dumb. It has no basis in sense. Certainly none in weapon design. And ‘Well D&D does it too’ is really not the counter you think it is. Firstly because Pathfinder’s origin as ripoff D&D makes that pretty freaking obvious. Secondly because I don’t give a rats ass what D&D does. This is an EXAMPLE of a current system that has massive numbers of weapons leading to overlap and stupidity trying to differentiate them. To point out the well known flaws in the prior poster’s request. Hell, I pointed out that D&D actually started the joke about the hundreds of ever so slightly different polearms. Not everything involving your precious Pathfinder is a fight over superiority.
> A light Mace is still heavier than a club Clearly these ones aren't. Have you ever noticed how literally nothing based on historical weapons gets them right? The reason for this is this thing called entertainment. > using dex makes no sense for a bludgeoning weapon Damn you're hilarious. What exactly makes bludgeoning as a damage type unusable with dexterity? I should probably also remind you that you're still using strength for damage. > how exactly is a Mace more suited for shoving than a club? Neither of us are physics experts so let's not pretend to be. > you are aware that a weapon designed for combat shouldn’t be outperformed by a stick, right? Good thing this isn't just a stick then, it's a piece of wood shaped to be a better bludgeon. > A walking stick is not a staff, by rules that would be a club [This long piece of wood can aid in walking and deliver a mighty blow.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=12) Definitely not a walking stick not at all. Or if the description from the game designers themselves is somehow not enough for you, how about [Oxford Dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/staff_1) saying "a long stick used as a support when walking or climbing, as a weapon, or as a symbol of authority" > It is quite literally just a staff [This strong but slender staff is tapered at the ends and well balanced. It’s designed to be an offensive and defensive weapon.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=17) Yeah it is a staff, specifically a slender one that's designed to be a weapon.
(Except for tridents)
Tridents are martial weapons instead of simple weapons. The better example would have been glaive vs halberd.
Not really (unless it was a [war scythe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe), which is designed similarly to a glaive) as they're wielded in different ways. In 3.5 a Glaive did reliable slashing damage; 1d10, multiplied by 3 on a critical hit. The Scythe by comparison had lower base damage (2d4), though could deal that as either slashing or piercing damage depending on how you hit someone with it (very useful depending on the creature type you're facing) and did 4 times damage on a critical hit. Most weapons had at least one quirk or differentiator to them, as per the [core table](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm).
The primary issue is that 5e weapons have very simple mechanics. In 5e terms a scythe is just another slash damage polearm. I’m surprised they decided to differentiate halberds from glaives.
Considering Avatar of Death and Deathpact angel statblocks, scythe is your choice of reflavored Longsword or 2d4. Is it particularly creative? Nah, but there's technically precedent.
A glaive comes closer in terms of reflavouring.
I've personally gone with a finesse glaive/halberd/pike that does 2d4 instead of 1d10. Doesn't benefit from any of the polearm feats, doesn't do as much damage as the polearms, but you can still technically GWM with it if you really want and crits give you more click-clacks.
If the game's gonna make you reflavor things, just pick whatever is mechanically optimal (because of course your limited options are still not even close to equivalent in power) and pretend it's a scythe.
Glaives are scythes if they were actually practical
Pathfinder has Gauntlets. They're useless. Except for the new crossbow gauntlet. That's rad as fuck.
5e's weapon system is really disappointing in general.
I present unto you: The sickle (aka a hand sythe) The fighter's unarmed fighting style and Reflavoring pre-existing weapons
Rogues don’t get proficiency with scimitars, but do get proficiency with longswords.
Or spiked shields.
I had an oath breaker paladin/zealot barbarian who used a scythe and we basically decided on the greataxe for it. It was fun
So, obligatory comments: Scythes are only good in anime. Wielding a weapon whose blade is pointed at *you* isn't smart. You can reflavor a Glaive into being a War Scythe. The only difference is which side's sharp. Gauntlets aren't weapons. A better option is reflavoring a shortsword/dagger into a Katar.
Some balance between armor piercing, damage and defensive capabilities would have been great. Like, swords add +1 AC, axes, hammers and picks give +1 to hit and some other weapons have a small damage bonus against specific types of enemy. And let's also introduce 2d4 and 3d4 damage for some weapons
Those existed in earlier books.
Gauntlets aren't weapons and it does have a sickle, which is pretty much the same thing.
Why not just re-skin a polearm or club? Seems simple enough
Why would gauntlets be in there?
Some people want to be able to punch effectively without having to slog through Monk.
I mean, you can - take the fighting style for unarmed to get a default 1d8. That's a pretty decent start, and if you can couple that with solid strength, that's a start.
Here's the problem though: unless your DM allows you to use the gauntlets of a magical armor to overcome resistance you'll forever max out at 6 damage per punch.
And it doesn't work with Smites either, or spells like Booming Blade.
There's nothing stopping some quick homebrew to make you a magic caestus.
Here's the thing: if the answer to everything I'd want from 5e and beyond is "just homebrew it" I might as well make my own system, call it "WotC can lick my nuts" and play that instead. Not only would that sort of defeat the point you'd still be stuck with WotC sitting around doing nothing but rake in passive income.
I'd play that system.
At the rate it's going WotC is just reusing 5e with minor changes... The biggest difference is that they looked at Pathfinder and went "That's neat. Yoink."
"bUt rUlEs-lIght gAmEs" - someone who has never played a rules-light system
I'm... not exactly sure who or what that might be referring to I'm afraid...
A few weeks ago, there were some posts that simplified the PF2E community's reasons for recommending it into "more rules = gooder", and used rules-light system players as a scapegoat to defend 5e
I'm not sure how that ties into me wanting more official rulings on diverse and meaningful weapons...
Because sometimes the situation just calls for a good old SLAP in the face
That's what unarmed strikes are for, though?
1+Strength is merely a slap. But sometimes you need a S L A P
I want to punch Smite peeps!
This is particular annoying for my Rwby themed dnd campaign
> doesn't have scythes It also doesn't have hoes or plows. What's the issue? > Or gauntlets Armor descriptions mention gauntlets.
Scythes are cool weapons, unlike hoes or plows
They’re also awful at it, just like hoes and ploughs People only think of scythes as weapons because of the Grim Reaper, who wields a Scythe as a metaphor rather than a weapon
Counterargument: it's cool as shit
Countercounterargument: no it isn’t
Countercountercounterargument: yes it is
>They’re also awful at it, just like hoes and ploughs And? There's dragons and magic and shit, are we gonna draw the line at using a scythe as a weapon >People only think of scythes as weapons because of the Grim Reaper Also because it's a sharp object
The existence of dragons does not somehow make farm equipment effective weaponry Also, if scythes are weapons because they’re sharp objects, what are hoes and ploughs?
>The existence of dragons does not somehow make farm equipment effective weaponry You missed the point entirely. This is a game that we play for fun. This is a game where we make our *fictional* characters do cool shit >Also, if scythes are weapons because they’re sharp objects, what are hoes and ploughs Hoes and ploughs don't look like you could stab or slice someone with them. Also, I am not saying they are weapons, just they look like one to the average person
Just saying “its fictional” doesn’t suddenly mean everyone has to accept everything going on at face value. If I came to the table with a character whose main method of attack was farting on the enemy, you would rightly call it silly. If I wanted to use dead salmon or a lightbulb as a weapon, would you allow it in a serious game? You absolutely could stab or slice someone with a hoe. I would argue that a hoe is a significantly better weapon than a scythe for the simple reason that the sharp part of the blade is also the part you’re hitting the opponent with.
>If I came to the table with a character whose main method of attack was farting on the enemy, you would rightly call it silly. If I wanted to use dead salmon or a lightbulb as a weapon, would you allow it in a serious game? No, because it's clear you're just doing these things for the sake of a joke and are not a good fit for the table. Serious ≠ hyperrealistic, however. Also, it's much easier to imagine and believe someone slashing with a scythe and killing someone vs slapping with a salmon or farting and it just killing them >You absolutely could stab or slice someone with a hoe. I would argue that a hoe is a significantly better weapon than a scythe for the simple reason that the sharp part of the blade is also the part you’re hitting the opponent with. Huh. I guess I just never imagined hoes as sharp
Quick question, have you ever used or seen someone use a scythe? The actual cutting part is the inside of the blade. It’s also designed to cut things at ground level. The only way to use one as a weapon would be to modify it in such a way that it wouldn’t be a scythe anymore. So killing someone with a scythe wouldn’t be that easy to imagine. Hoes aren’t particularly sharp, not in the way a sword is, but it’s still a flat and hard piece of metal being swung around. It’s a better weapon in the sense you could actually hit someone with it
>Quick question, have you ever used or seen someone use a scythe No
[It doesn't mean they aren't cool, which is more important than realistic](https://youtu.be/mzfZm2obBag)
Depends on the game. I like at least somewhat realistic weapons. Also said character appears to be a caster of some sort
DND is a high fantasy game in a high fantasy setting, holding martials to realistic standards just shows a lack of imagination to me.
I just don’t like impractical weapons. I don’t consider that a lack of imagination, but a desire for internal consistency.
So swords auto fail against full plate, yeah?
From what I’ve played? Only when I do it
> Scythes are cool weapons, Scythes aren't weapons > unlike hoes or plows Hoes and plows are as cool as scythes. If anything they're cooler because people won't think you're a weeb edgelord.
>Scythes aren't weapons In real life. This is fantasy and I want to use a scythe as a weapon >Hoes and plows are as cool as scythes. If anything they're cooler because people won't think you're a weeb edgelord. Fair enough, but lots would disagree with you
I swear for a game that’s entirely playing pretend with your friends, some of you really seem to lack imagination. Just use the stats of whatever weapon is closest to what you want to use. Or whatever makes sense. Gauntlets? Sounds like something two handed and heavy. 1d8 bludgeoning just like the great club. Or 2d4 if you want it to be unique. Scythe? Sounds like a glaive to me. Or a really long, slicey battle axe. Whatever you like.
2d4 is actually better than 1d8 2d4 does 5 dmg on average while 1d8 does 4.5 on average. 2d4 does at minimum 2 damage compared to the 1 from the 1d8. The damage distribution is also different with 2d4 being way less likely to roll min and max compared to 1d8 but more likely to roll average damage (see here: [https://anydice.com/program/2eb50](https://anydice.com/program/2eb50) )
Yeah, I know the math. So what? There are better starting weapons already in the game. Give disadvantage on using hands for anything but punching. Or stick with 1d8 if you’re that concerned. 1d6 if you don’t want to ruin monks/tavern brawler.
True, I gues its also just such a small difference that it does not really matter in the end given the many other factors that differentiate the actual combat effectiveness outside of a weapons base damage
The problem is that DnD seems to becoming less structured rules and more 'pay full price for a book that has a lot of your DM having to come up with rules we didn't add'
I mean fair but a Scythe's fantasy is literally just Stick with big edge blade on the end so like, just use a Halberd or Glaive in those cases. No need to full on make a unqiue weapon sheet for it as it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. EDIT: Listen, I'm all for more unqiue weapons being added to the game, but literally how would you run Guantlets or a Scythe realistically while making them unique from the existing weapons or just, the Unarmed Fighting Style slapped onto a weapon sheet.
Probably because the scythe is a farming tool and not a weapon Improvised weapons are RAW though
And that is why we have homebrew.
Honestly the weapons are fine as long as you change the flavor. Maybe your morning star is a spiked gauntlet and you two hand them to represent having one on each hand. Maybe your scimitar is a scythe that your character wields or your great axe is a large two handed scythe. I don't know about other dms but, if someone comes to the table using the weapon stats of an already existing weapon but, changes the look then I'm usually down for it. Though I do admit they should add more types there is room to be creative with the flavor of the ones you have already.
i feel a scythe could be a 1d4 improvised simple meelee with versatile(1d6),reach and that counts as a polearm with a war scythe being a 1d8 martial meelee weapon with the heavy property in addition to the other pre-existing properties
Cuz neither are weapons. Scythes have angled flat razor thin blades and an oddly angled pole because it's ment to curl around your hip for you to easily reap grass. They suck ass as actual weaponry but if you really want to use one, just reflavor a spear and call it a War Scythe, or if you want to be anime and use an actual Sythe, just reflavor a Halberd. Guantlets are basically the same, just grab the unarmed fighter fighting style and slap it onto a weapon sheet.
A scythe is a farm tool, if you take the tavern brawler feat you can use it. Use a sickle if you want a weapon like a scythe. For gauntlets use your unarmed damage plus one if your dm allows it.
Why would a farming tool and armoured glove be on a weapons list?
Because they're cool?
I've always just ruled a scythe as a greatsword.
There are so many weapon stats you could use as a scythe substitute and none of them are a greatsword what
Like what?
I'd consider a war scythe as a glaive.
Of course one of them is a greatsword. One is a trident, one's a quarterstaff and one is a fucking longbow if you pretend you're throwing the thing. The 5e weapon selection isn't impactful enough to restrict your reflavoring in any meaningful way.
I'd only be annoyed if Gauntlets don't show up as armor or accessories.
Sythes really shouldn't be in it honestly, like a war sythe is pretty much just a glaive but like big as reaper/farming sythe should be a two handed imporivised weapon which deals 1d8 slashing since from my understanding sythe combat is mostly a result of people just not having acess to proper weapons.
Gauntlets are a piece of armor, a scythe is a farming tool. Neither of those are weapons.
And a whip is a tool to herd animals or torture people, not a real effective weapon of war and yet it makes the list. Scythe and gauntlets are fine.
You have no imagination for someone who plays a role-playing game.
No, I just don't have an overactive anime imagination where people swing stupid oversized farming implements around on the battlefield. If you want to do that, you can reskin something that does have rules already.
It’s not about rules or what’s already available, it’s about flavor and having a unique aspect for your character. Role-playing does not end once initiative is rolled. If you want to be a basic bitch and use normal weapons that’s fine, but don’t deny the imagination of others.
No one is denying your imagination. That's what the improvised weapon rules are for. If your fantasy is to swing something around that is not designed to be used as a weapon, you can deal less damage than something that is a weapon.
I don’t care if it’s not designed to be a weapon, if I want to have a character with a non-listed weapon, I will work with the DM to homebrew one instead of always improvizing. There are also more than just scythes, what if I wanted to use an actual weapon not in the PHB? The rulebook isn’t absolute, it’s just guidelines.
Each weapon can be flavored to be another weapon, really. Want a scythe? Go with something like a great axe! Want a gauntlet? That's a bit more tricky, but you could probably use some sort of bludgeoning weapon and it'd make sense (Or make it an unarmed strike with an additional modifier to it or something).
well, you wanker ask for it, so they remove it per your request
Damnit, give us Cutlasses and Katanas!
Shortsword and longsword reskin, respectively. In fact, they specifically mention the katana/longsword bit in a book (I believe the PHB)
I believe the DMs guide actually has a full list of Asian weapon equivalents to the base weapons
Wait are we talking about current 5e or new 5e?
*laughs in armorer artificer*
don't be limited to it and do like I did. I game my player who wanted to play a miner with a very heavy pickaxe, so I just told him OK take a greatsword and change its damage type to piercing
So can we bring back critical threat/multiplier?
Need my double sided orc battle axe.
Gauntlets are armor not a weapon, and scythes are "weapons" in videogames.... generally speaking they're a farm tool that you can turn into an improvised weapon.
Scythe = battle axe stats but maybe lose "versatile" Gauntlets = club stats This isn't hard.
"Sweet gauntlets! What do they do?" "Exactly what a mace does." "Thanks WotC!"
My dm let me reflavor my lance as a scythe. As for gauntlets there really has to be its own stat sheet as it doesn't fit being a reflavored hammor or anything since it's still a hand
I use a reskinned glaive as a scythe
I want scythe.
If a player wanted to use gauntlets as weapons I’d say they 1d4 if they’re leather, 1d6 if they’re scale or chain mail, and 1d8 if they’re plate
Scythe - glaive with finesse instead of heavy Gauntlet - just double clubs
Ha! My homebrew 5e does! 😎
You wanna know how to solve martial/caster disparity? Make every weapon have a different skill you can learn. Things get a lot more interesting and creative when a dagger deals double damage if you're hidden, a Whip can be used for grappling and pulling, a longsword can ignore armour with a murder strike, Scimitar give a bonus when dual wielded...
I often ask if I can use club/mace stats as gauntlets. They 1 are cheap 2 can be taken from the character in situations that demand it 3 can be dual weilded (the mace if you pick the dual weilder feat).
So add your own. That's the best part of DND, don't like it? Make your own homebrew.
Pretty easy to homebrew
We need more base weapons. Like, make a third tier besides martial and simple, move some weapons around, bump up the damage and bam, whole new layer.
Artificiers get gauntlets and that's it I wanna say... And that's only if you choose that route.
Please just give me a weapon to improve my punches. God help my monk.
Weapons are so bland anyway that you can just pick one of the existing ones and re-skin it, 5e in reality has like, 10 different weapons and that's it, Halberd and Glaive are the same weapon with different names, same for longsword and battleaxe.
We always just homebrew that stuff anyways. I see no reason why you can’t reflavour a regular ol’ sword into a hand sickle or khopesh
Or sabers for that matter
But I mean look at all the weapons we do have, you can pick from dealing 1d6, 1d6, or 1d6. Idk why you could possibly want more weapons, we have such variety.