10 minute barbarian rage is completely incoherent

[LibraryOgre]

And while it is sometimes used for cheese, I've also really liked BG3's "cheap and easy" retraining. I wouldn't go QUITE that easy or quick in table top, but it has been great in the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."

A feat is one part of a character though. It's a big part, but it doesn't mean you're not effective with other weapons. That dwarf fighter still has Action Surge with the hammer, additional Extra Attacks, and any subclass features like Maneuvers. A barbarian can Reckless Attack with any melee weapon. Paladins can still smite, etc.

This occurred to me in DiA. I had Polearm Master. My character wound up attuning to the mcguffin, which was a longsword. I used the longsword because it was ridiculously powerful. The dwarf fighter in your example would likely use the Greathammer of Moradin for similar reasons AND is probably the only one in the party even trained to use a maul.

One of the perks (and in my experience it's a big one) of playing Strength warriors is that you basically have your pick of the magic weapons that you find, because usually no one else can use them.

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?

I think characters can still do this. Your class and subclass features still work with other weapons.

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.

Sure. But this to me is a symptom of having a set of combat rules that fit on a notepad sticky.

[Theodoxus]

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.

3.5 also had Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, and a bunch of other weapon specific feats, and as a Ftr lvl 1 Weapon Focus was a great feat. They added "Melee Weapon Mastery" in PHB2, which gave boni with all piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning weapons (depending on which you chose), but you still nedeed WF and WS to get it, so while nice in giving boni to a whole school of weapons, you were still incentivized to stick with whatever you took WF and WS to begin with.

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.

I'd probably do something like feat groups, and allow for interchange between different feats in the same group, and then provide options on how often a feat can be changed. Highly heroic games might allow a feat to be changed during a rest. More traditional might allow a feat to change at level up. The most strict simply wouldn't allow it - and that decision is made in session zero.

The groups themselves would be things like 'Combat' with GWM, PAM, SS, Dueling, etc. 'Social' with Actor, Inspiring Leader, etc. 'Exploration' with Alert, Athlete, Dungeon Delver, etc.

[Witty Username]

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.

Fair enough,
3.5 personally reads a better, but I tended to avoid the entire focus + specialization lines because I am of the mind they are just bad (outside of paying taxes). But I was more searching for design examples anyway.

I like retraining being available, but I think feats can also be better designed to smooth over these problems.
Like say feats promoting tactics rather than loadout or giving multiple benefits to cover a greater build range.

Less weapon focus, more combat Expertise for 3.5 ways
Less PAM more Sentinel for 5e ways

Retraining more as an eject seat or emergency stop, good to have, but not intended for everyday use.

[Skrum]

Fair enough,


Retraining more as an eject seat or emergency stop, good to have, but not intended for everyday use.

I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

[Rukelnikov]

I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

I'm of the same mind, in the case of the warblade though my interpretation was "I'm good with weapons in general, so gimme an hour to acclimate with this one in particular and I'm groovy"

[Sindeloke]

But I gotta ask - does 5e actually lock characters into a specific weapon/weapon type? I generally say no it doesn't.

I think "generally no" is fair? It's only two builds that are a problem, and only because of the four usual suspect feats that are always causing problems; Glaive Guy who took PAM/GWM and Madame Quickshot who took XBE/SS should basically never touch a different weapon, but anyone else can swap around fairly freely. It's just that, part of the reason that anyone else can swap around fairly freely is that (other than Archery) fighting styles are really trivial. But if you're going to make fighting styles more interesting and impactful, the choices they key off become more impactful as well. So my concern is more preemptive. I want to divorce weapon styles from weapon types before buffing them, so that weapon limits due to build investment aren't inadvertently exacerbated as a consequence.

Sure. But [weapons themselves not having distinctions] to me is a symptom of having a set of combat rules that fit on a notepad sticky.

What kills me is, a lot of the rules are already there, they're just there as atomized exceptions. What if you didn't have to take Crusher? What if mauls and hammers just automatically Did That already? What if, instead of Spear Mastery existing, polearms themselves just came with the inherent property that you get an opportunity attack when something enters your reach? What if hooks or chains or axes let you try a trip as a bonus action if you hit, instead of Battlemaster being the only person in the history of war smart enough to figure out that you can use weapons for this stuff just as easily as your fists? What if all weapons let you trade -prof hit for +prof damage, and 2-hand weapons inherently let you double the damage bonus? 5e combat for martials does have some complexity, it's just hidden, opt-in complexity that you don't see until you start digging through class features and splats. You could just put it all in the PHB weapon section instead of scattering it across a dozen feats and it would leave the combat section just as clean and exactly as simple as it actually is now.

I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

It's a lot more necessary in video games. Mechanics are less forgiving, the presets and auto-leveling stats are far more likely to be deeply stupid, and the game will frequently give you items that trivialize your build choices, turn out to never actually have the challenges that you designed your build to handle, suddenly require a specific spell that you don't have, or have patches/DLC/class reworks that invalidate your combos or break your builds. I don't oppose retraining in tabletop, I think it's a useful tool, but I also think that if you pick a lot of face spells because you want to be the party face, you're probably going to prefer to ask the DM to run more social encounters over picking new spells, and in tabletop games that's always an option.

[Theodoxus]

What kills me is, a lot of the rules are already there, they're just there as atomized exceptions. What if you didn't have to take Crusher? What if mauls and hammers just automatically Did That already? What if, instead of Spear Mastery existing, polearms themselves just came with the inherent property that you get an opportunity attack when something enters your reach? What if hooks or chains or axes let you try a trip as a bonus action if you hit, instead of Battlemaster being the only person in the history of war smart enough to figure out that you can use weapons for this stuff just as easily as your fists? What if all weapons let you trade -prof hit for +prof damage, and 2-hand weapons inherently let you double the damage bonus? 5e combat for martials does have some complexity, it's just hidden, opt-in complexity that you don't see until you start digging through class features and splats. You could just put it all in the PHB weapon section instead of scattering it across a dozen feats and it would leave the combat section just as clean and exactly as simple as it actually is now.

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up. Now, I can totally get behind removing those features from feats, but I think they fit exactly in the fighting style zeitgeist. And since fighting styles are available via feat, anyone who wants to use them, can.

Remove the piddly +x to hit or damage (so Archery doesn't end up top dog, as accuracy > damage every time) and make FS weapon group specific that grant nifty riders ala the weapon feats we currently see.

I would also grant all fighters an extra FS at 10th (with Champions getting a 3rd at that level too).

I do think that sacrificing accuracy for power (-hit, +dam) should probably be baseline though. How many times have we seen regular dudes go roid-ragey swinging as hard as they can with very little accuracy. Heck, if I was going for a more realistic combat scenario, the rule would be unless you're a martial class, you HAVE to trade your PB to hit for damage (1:1 for non-martials); where martials can opt to, and get x2 PB to damage in the process!

[LibraryOgre]

I think "generally no" is fair? It's only two builds that are a problem, and only because of the four usual suspect feats that are always causing problems; Glaive Guy who took PAM/GWM and Madame Quickshot who took XBE/SS should basically never touch a different weapon, but anyone else can swap around fairly freely. It's just that, part of the reason that anyone else can swap around fairly freely is that (other than Archery) fighting styles are really trivial. But if you're going to make fighting styles more interesting and impactful, the choices they key off become more impactful as well. So my concern is more preemptive. I want to divorce weapon styles from weapon types before buffing them, so that weapon limits due to build investment aren't inadvertently exacerbated as a consequence.

I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.
2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

[Rukelnikov]

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up. Now, I can totally get behind removing those features from feats, but I think they fit exactly in the fighting style zeitgeist. And since fighting styles are available via feat, anyone who wants to use them, can.

Remove the piddly +x to hit or damage (so Archery doesn't end up top dog, as accuracy > damage every time) and make FS weapon group specific that grant nifty riders ala the weapon feats we currently see.

I would also grant all fighters an extra FS at 10th (with Champions getting a 3rd at that level too).

I do think that sacrificing accuracy for power (-hit, +dam) should probably be baseline though. How many times have we seen regular dudes go roid-ragey swinging as hard as they can with very little accuracy. Heck, if I was going for a more realistic combat scenario, the rule would be unless you're a martial class, you HAVE to trade your PB to hit for damage (1:1 for non-martials); where martials can opt to, and get x2 PB to damage in the process!

I say Nay!

That's a point where I think 5.5 is taking a step in the right direction in the form of weapon masteries. Now I think it's pretty far from perfect, and I wouldn't even call it good, but its still a step in the right direction.

You can now be unproficient with a weapon, which means you make a regular attack with the weapons damage die and damage type, you can be proficient with a weapon, adding your proficiency to your attacks with it, and you can take it one step further and be a master of it, accessing weapons special "moves" so to say, my problems with the system are that getting proficient in every weapon should be as cheap as it currently is, and masteries should be more inspired and sometimes intrinsic so to say of a weapon, like whips could have something more unique to them than slowing your target, tripping or disarming would be more fitting IMO, but still they design I feel is better.

[Psyren]

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.

Actually, you don't need to be a kensei to use a longsword as a monk - the Dedicated Weapon optional feature lets them treat longswords as monk weapons regardless of subclass! That actually makes the elf proficiency useful as it lets you qualify for the DW feature even if you're using a subclass like Shadow or Long Death that doesn't grant said proficiency itself.

2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

My guess is this is one reason they're removing that proficiency from Dwarves in 5.5e as it's a bit redundant. Every class or build that would benefit from using axes already gets it, while the ones that don't typically don't care to use it, rendering the racial proficiency pointless.

[Sindeloke]

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up.

IMO that's the point of proficiency, which I'd basically define as "being capable of consistently, effectively using a tool for its intended purpose." IE, I would not call any actual human proficient with a spear if they didn't know how to keep an enemy at range with it, that's the entire basic function of the weapon. Farming farmers aren't proficient with pitchforks, though, they're just improvising in a panic, so they wouldn't have access to the feature, and putting it on the weapon doesn't change anything for them. Speaking of which:

That's a point where I think 5.5 is taking a step in the right direction in the form of weapon masteries. Now I think it's pretty far from perfect, and I wouldn't even call it good, but its still a step in the right direction.

The idea that only a "master" would use a spear in a way that has different game effects than a dagger annoys me, especially if masteries remain so expensive and singular. But I can understand wanting to distinguish proficiency and mastery in the first place. I think mastery is a good place to put effects that are much more fantastical, like bouncing a thrown weapon off of a dozen targets or the single samurai strike that's so fast the enemy doesn't even know it's dead until six seconds later. A sort of signature move type thing, possibly with more than one option per weapon, or even an interplay between class and weapon (ie, mastery that works for any great weapon but only barbs can take it, vs mastery only for daggers but some rogues get it automatically, vs one for all axes from thrown to great that anyone can grab).

I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.
2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

Fair point. I can definitely say, to pick a completely random example, that a Githyanki monk who uses a silver greatsword for her main attack and still gets to use her monk features feels very good and thematic, and is the sort of thing that makes you go "huh, I wish monks were like this in base D&D." But I've always disagreed strongly with the devs about how thematically restrictive the monk is to begin with. I'm much more comfortable with rogue restrictions, because I agree with WotC that the class they have adapted over the years should probably be using finesse weapons; I think exceptions should exist, but are enough of a divergence from the base concept that they should be fully-developed subclasses like "guild enforcer" and "dwarven tunnel scout" rather than available to any rogue in the base chassis. I can see how their logic for monks is the same. (Although even then, I think those exceptions are important enough that a STR rogue and weapon monk subclass should have been in the PHB from jump.)

[Kane0]

I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks
2) Thieves Rogues

Ooh yes, already done for my own versions!

To clarify:

Spoiler

Show

Martial Arts
While wearing light or no armor you gain the following benefits:
- When attacking with an unarmed strike or melee weapon you are proficient in, you can use your monk die as the damage die as shown in the monk class table
- You can use your dexterity instead of strength for the purposes of jumping, grappling and unarmed strikes
- As a bonus action you can make an unarmed strike

Graceful Defence
While wearing light or no armor you gain the following benefits:
- You can add your Wisdom bonus to your unarmored AC
- You reduce any falling damage you take by three times your monk level
- When hit by an attack that deals bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken by your monk die + dex + your monk level.

Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if you do not have disadvantage on the attack roll and either A) have advantage on the attack roll or B) the target is within reach of an ally that is not incapacitated.
This extra damage equals a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (rounded up). The extra damage’s type is the same as the attack’s Damage Type.

Ranged monk weapons and medium/heavy armor monks would still be a subclass thing though.

[Witty Username]

I am more comfortable main boarding rogue versatility, because it is self corecting.

Light armor, benefits from stealth and mobile play all already encourages dex builds and finesse and ranged weapons.

Sneak attack with a greatsword gives options but that doesn't mean the are good without auxiliary support like multiclassing or a subclass.

Monk is sorta the opposite, I am pretty comfortable with no monk features working with ranged weapons, because as we see on the optimization end, ranged on monk specificly overshadows almost all the benefits of melee on a monk.

You do have narrative things like how a crossbow would drop movement speed, but that is not all that different then the frustrations of a rogue trying to sneak attack with a sword, which most of have seen as at least tolerable without a game balance issue.

That being said, I still prefer open concept
Paladin bow smiting
Zabuza rogues
Monk bow masters
Barbarian axe throwers
Minsc style rangers with mighty swords
Etc.