Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Philosophy of Greataxe vs. Greatsword
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8462983" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Sure, though you could just leave daggers and other Rogue weapons out from that particular benefit. Since it specifically requires "a finesse or ranged weapon," it's simple enough to just say that that particular tag should not be used at the same time as the finesse tag, and is melee-only. Then you could have a 2d6 "precise" greatsword and a 1d12 "high crit" greataxe. You could even the maul bring back the "brutal N" tag, meaning every damage die rolled for that weapon must do more than N damage (aka "if you roll N or less, reroll it until it's more than N"). So you could have a 2d6 brutal 1 maul (average 6, 12 on a crit) compared to the more accurate but more variable greatsword (average 7 damage, 14 on a crit) and the more devastating but even more variable greataxe (average 6.5 damage, 19.5 on a crit).</p><p></p><p>This would have the side benefit (for those who see it as such) that axes and mauls would be more favorable to Barbarians and folks <em>not</em> using Great Weapon style, while those who do use it would favor the more expensive greatsword. Their ways of fighting would thus naturally lead to them using the associated weapons.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It seems to me that the overall average opinion is that 5e erred on the side of caution when it came to complexity. That's why we have things like Level Up. There's a sizable market for "5e, but with a <em>bit</em> more crunch." (Honestly, there's a sizable market for "5e, but with a pretty fair amount more crunch," but I'm fairly well convinced WotC at the least doesn't think that market is worth the opportunity cost of chasing it.)</p><p></p><p>Also, you make it sound like these things are huge overhead. They aren't. They literally match existing rules in various ways. Officially list them as optional rules if that's what you need, but come on man, if the existing Fighting Styles aren't "needless complexity" then these weapon properties can't be either. It's literally: "increase your +hit by one," "roll 3x your weapon dice on a crit, not 2x," and "reroll all damage dice that are too low, until they aren't." I mean, for goodness' sake, the Champion--that is, the simplest subclass of the simplest class--gets <em>two</em> Fighting Styles, and I've literally never seen anyone complain about that being burdensome overhead or needless complexity, despite many of them being <em>more</em> complicated!</p><p></p><p>I get, very much, that there's a contingent of 5e fans for whom this edition is at the ragged edge of tolerable complexity, and it sounds like you're at least sympathetic to their position. But those fans were never going to be the primary focus of 5e's future development. WotC wants to sell books, and make every book so that it offers DM-facing material <em>and</em> player-facing material so that everyone has a reason to buy. They were never going to take a policy of "never increase the complexity, but maybe decrease it now and then."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8462983, member: 6790260"] Sure, though you could just leave daggers and other Rogue weapons out from that particular benefit. Since it specifically requires "a finesse or ranged weapon," it's simple enough to just say that that particular tag should not be used at the same time as the finesse tag, and is melee-only. Then you could have a 2d6 "precise" greatsword and a 1d12 "high crit" greataxe. You could even the maul bring back the "brutal N" tag, meaning every damage die rolled for that weapon must do more than N damage (aka "if you roll N or less, reroll it until it's more than N"). So you could have a 2d6 brutal 1 maul (average 6, 12 on a crit) compared to the more accurate but more variable greatsword (average 7 damage, 14 on a crit) and the more devastating but even more variable greataxe (average 6.5 damage, 19.5 on a crit). This would have the side benefit (for those who see it as such) that axes and mauls would be more favorable to Barbarians and folks [I]not[/I] using Great Weapon style, while those who do use it would favor the more expensive greatsword. Their ways of fighting would thus naturally lead to them using the associated weapons. It seems to me that the overall average opinion is that 5e erred on the side of caution when it came to complexity. That's why we have things like Level Up. There's a sizable market for "5e, but with a [I]bit[/I] more crunch." (Honestly, there's a sizable market for "5e, but with a pretty fair amount more crunch," but I'm fairly well convinced WotC at the least doesn't think that market is worth the opportunity cost of chasing it.) Also, you make it sound like these things are huge overhead. They aren't. They literally match existing rules in various ways. Officially list them as optional rules if that's what you need, but come on man, if the existing Fighting Styles aren't "needless complexity" then these weapon properties can't be either. It's literally: "increase your +hit by one," "roll 3x your weapon dice on a crit, not 2x," and "reroll all damage dice that are too low, until they aren't." I mean, for goodness' sake, the Champion--that is, the simplest subclass of the simplest class--gets [I]two[/I] Fighting Styles, and I've literally never seen anyone complain about that being burdensome overhead or needless complexity, despite many of them being [I]more[/I] complicated! I get, very much, that there's a contingent of 5e fans for whom this edition is at the ragged edge of tolerable complexity, and it sounds like you're at least sympathetic to their position. But those fans were never going to be the primary focus of 5e's future development. WotC wants to sell books, and make every book so that it offers DM-facing material [I]and[/I] player-facing material so that everyone has a reason to buy. They were never going to take a policy of "never increase the complexity, but maybe decrease it now and then." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Philosophy of Greataxe vs. Greatsword
Top