D&D (2024) With Weapon Mastery likely making it in, do you want optional exotic weapons and exotic weapon masteries?

[CreamCloud0]

If there was a superior weapon that didn't take special training to use, then why would anyone be using a short sword?

because it does takes specific training to become proficient in that superior weapon, whereas knowing how to use a shortsword comes as part of the generic swathe of martial weapon proficiencies.

I mean, who would use a longbow if an AR-15 can be picked up at Walmart?

i think a more apt comparison is why if you can order a custom-built computer specced for your exact needs why do people continue to buy the standard consumer model designs, because in alot of circumstances the consumer model functions well enough for purpose for 90% of people who don't want/need those precise capabilities and designing the custom one for yourself is going to be confusing and potentially even less efficient unless you know what you're getting into with the nitty-gritty of computer design.

Let the character be the one who specializes in something.

be it learned through subclass or feat, it's still the character who specialised in the knowledge of how to use the exotic weapon, it's just a matter of how much leaning how to use a specific weapon defined their entire fighting style/design progression, if all the special tricks come from a subclass then it's not something the weapon is providing and can only be used with that subclass.

We don't need more weapons to have more weapon feats.

true, but that doesn't mean specifically designed weapons with unique combinations of properties wouldn't lead to more unique fighting styles with those weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe not understanding something, but I'm not the only one who seems to be pointing it out. Wotc has shown less than zero willingness or even interest in adding crunch. Without the crunch having EWPs is just the same as 5e's overpowered imbalanced elements that justify their impact by dumping it on the gm as not so optional "optional" elements or they are mechanically identical things that dump a bunch of rule zero fluff on the gm with an expectation for the gm to carry them instead of supporting themselves mechanically.

I thought I was being clear.

This would be DMG content. Where WOTC puts crunch and noncore stuff.


It can take the page were Epic Boons was.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Having a Boomerang weapon sounds cool. But I really wouldn't want to complicate stuff with Exotic Weapon Prof feats or whatever.

 

[tetrasodium]

I thought I was being clear.

This would be DMG content. Where WOTC puts crunch and noncore stuff.


It can take the page were Epic Boons was.

Hard pass. wotc already dumps too much of what the system should handle on the gm. I don't need the dmg to tell me what the names for sword mace spear and dagger with a maybe funny shape were in various cultures. From there I certainly don't need to have them do it with mechanically superior or uselessly inferior attributes.

As to the dmg as a source of crunch, that doesn't make sense in the way it's normally used when referencing mechanics. You can't take 5e's overly simplistic weapons and bolt on crunch without undertaking the monumental task of adjusting monsters spells class abilities and probably more

 

[mellored]

true, but that doesn't mean specifically designed weapons with unique combinations of properties wouldn't lead to more unique fighting styles with those weapons.

there's something like 40 weapons and 8 weapon feats.

There's still plenty of room to create fighting styles without needing to introducing more clutter. Especially if since you can already mix and match (i.e. crusher + great weapon master + maul + topple)

And if you are going to develop some unique fighting style. Then go all in and make it something exceptional with a subclass.

IMO.

 

[CreamCloud0]

And if you are going to develop some unique fighting style. Then go all in and make it something exceptional with a subclass.

okay, but you see how that's ultimately more restrictive right? i can't be a battlemaster fighter, or a swords bard, or a war cleric if i have to dedicate my entire subclass just to being able to use this one weapon in a unique way, on top of that you're either going to have to design a half dozen subclasses for the exotic weapon fighter, the exotic weapon bard and the exotic weapon cleric, aren't those even more clutter than a couple of weapons?, or there's only going to be one or two classes that can ever have access to exotic weapons naturally.

 

[Minigiant]

Hard pass. wotc already dumps too much of what the system should handle on the gm. I don't need the dmg to tell me what the names for sword mace spear and dagger with a maybe funny shape were in various cultures. From there I certainly don't need to have them do it with mechanically superior or uselessly inferior attributes.

As to the dmg as a source of crunch, that doesn't make sense in the way it's normally used when referencing mechanics. You can't take 5e's overly simplistic weapons and bolt on crunch without undertaking the monumental task of adjusting monsters spells class abilities and probably more

You can most certainly do it.

WOTC just botched the 2014 DMG because they leaned too far on grognards and put no time in the schedule for the DMG.

BUT
Having the chakram and boomerang be 1d6 light thrown property with the return mastery

The chain-sickle and rope-dagger be 1d4 reach protect with the Snag mastery

The dearven Battlehammer, orcish Waraxe, and hobgoblin Warscythe be 1d12 heavy two handed property with the Brutalize mastery


Can all be balanced.

 

[tetrasodium]

You can most certainly do it.

WOTC just botched the 2014 DMG because they leaned too far on grognards and put no time in the schedule for the DMG.

BUT
Having the chakram and boomerang be 1d6 light thrown property with the return mastery

The chain-sickle and rope-dagger be 1d4 reach protect with the Snag mastery

The dearven Battlehammer, orcish Waraxe, and hobgoblin Warscythe be 1d12 heavy two handed property with the Brutalize mastery


Can all be balanced.

No you can not. The "it" in this case would be adding mechanical crunch to provide hooks for an EWP type set of weapons to be distinctly useful without dumping their weight on the gm or being overly good. That crunch would almost certainly require itself to be extended through most monsters, some feats, some spells, some class abilities and so on. That is not a small task or something that can be retroactively added through a bolt option.

5e's overly simplistic design ensures that there is no room to "do it" without impacting those other areas. Your examples look to be treading into the realm of obviously better mechanical nonchoices & that was one of the design failures I mentioned would be imposed by a shallow design space

 

[mellored]

or there's only going to be one or two classes that can ever have access to exotic weapons naturally.

I'm perfectly fine if the fighter gets to be the weapon class.

Or do you think all classes should be able to bring people back from the dead, summon wolves, and create wall of force too?
Maybe with their subclass they can cast a few of those.

And again. Clerics can already use all their feats to being good at a particular weapon (crusher, charger, great weapon master, weapon mastery, +2 Str).

To be clear. I am fine with Whip master, dagger master, thrown weapon master, etc..

But make those first before we make Chakram master.

 

[Horwath]

I would get rid of simple/martial split in addition.

The weapons table is all over the place, with so sense what so ever.


shortbow is simple and longbow is martial? why? it's the same weapon with different weight pull.

same goes for all crossbows, why is light simple and heavy martial? point of all crossbows is to be simple to aim.

Same goes for firearms, they phased out bows as you could teach a village idiot how to use a musket in an hour.

handaxe simple, battleaxe martial? it's a damn axe.

same goes for light hammer and warhammer, some would even say that light hammer is more difficult as you need to learn to throw it at range, not just bash someone over head. Same as handaxe.

sickle is simple with it's disadvantage shape for combat and morning star that requires no edge alignment is martial? haha.


also, finesse has same value as versatile? what a joke.


where is the longspear, simple twohanded weapon, after a rock and stone dagger, one of the 1st known weapons to humanity?