D&D General What are your Pedantic Complaints about D&D?

Blue · Jul 17, 2019

Imaculata said:
[/I]Another pet peeve of mine: Weapons with garbage stats. I hate it when there's a boatload of weapons in the player's handbook, and half of them no one in their right mind would ever consider taking, because of their poor damage. Then what's the point of having them at all? Do you really want to be the one in the party not pulling their weight, because you thought having a whip as a weapon was cool?

Oh I hear you. 80% of the weapons table never gets regularly because there are better options.

Personally I'm a fan of resolving this by assigning weapon damage by class and size like 13th Age and just skin it as anything that fits your concept, but younger me would be down with the people who want to have more differentiation and a crunchy system to work out weapon damage and perks fairly. After all, if it's only used off-the-table, who cares if it takes 2 minutes instead of 20 seconds to pick a weapon.

Xetheral · Jul 17, 2019

Jer said:
I'm trying to figure out the circumstances where the difference would matter - or why Crawford got this question in the first place. (Clicking the link gave no context, just the answer).

Is someone wondering whether whacking a monster with their longbow counts as a "melee weapon attack"? I don't even get why this question would come up...

ETA: I know this is the thread for pedantry, and this is pedantry and so it's appropriate. But the fact that Crawford got asked this question just blows my mind - I just have to know why it matters!

Tony Vargas said:
There are melee weapons that can be thrown. So there's a very practical distinction between "attack with a melee weapon" or "melee attack with a weapon," as throwing an axe at someone is ranged attack with a melee weapon, but not a melee attack, at all.
Hitting someone with a bowstave is a less common example of the same distinction.

Tony's answer is spot on. In my experience, it's a common question asked by new players trying to figure out which abilities apply to which combinations of attack type and weapon type.

It doesn't help that the very first class ability a new player reads in the PHB is Rage, which is the paradigmatic example of an ability players want to use with thrown weapons but are not able to due to the lack of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon".

The other usual example where new players stumble is Sharpshooter, where the first bullet point applies to thrown melee weapons (because you're making a ranged weapon attack) but the second two don't (because you're not attacking with a ranged weapon).

And that's not even getting to the unarmed strike errata, or Reckless Attack's unique variant "melee weapon attack roll" (which Crawford has said somehow doesn't mean "an attack roll when attacking with a melee weapon" but instead means (pedantically applying compound-adjective hypenation rules) a "melee-weapon-attack attack roll".)

ETA: Sadly, going by Crawford you can't use Reckless Attack when attacking by tossing a caber, even though I'm pretty sure that "recklessly" is the only way to do so.

Sadras · Jul 18, 2019

Lanefan said:
That said, because you're dealing with small whole numbers it's not very granular and thus a whole lot of different weapons get shoehorned into doing d6 or d8 damage. 1e tried to mitigate this a bit by differentiating weapons vs armour type, and 3e kinda waved at differentiating between slash-pierce-bludgeon; but any such system is going to add lots of complication for, really, not all that much return. So in the end we kinda have to live with it.

Additional weapon properties/traits/qualities is another way such as Bulk, Defensive, Fast, Hook, Nimble, Piercing, Staggering which could be added to the ones that are included already (Finesse, Range, Reach, Two-Handed...etc).

These qualities could increase the scope of weapons
+1 on AC or +1 vs Disarm or Trip, or dislodge opponents shield for a round, +1 additional damage for every 5 above the AC required, on a Crit opponents of x size roll DC 8+Prof+Str otherwise knock prone or imposed x Condition, bonus to initiative, damage opponents armour, impose penalty/disadvantage on athletic/acrobatic checks while wielding such weapon...just a few ideas thrown out there.

DND_Reborn · Jul 18, 2019

We added weapon properties: Skewer, Stun, Wound for many piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing weapons. Basically on a critical hit they involve the target making a Dex, Str, or Con check to avoid additional damage, etc.

Sadras · Jul 18, 2019

dnd4vr said:
We added weapon properties: Skewer, Stun, Wound for many piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing weapons. Basically on a critical hit they involve the target making a Dex, Str, or Con check to avoid additional damage, etc.

Sure, but that doesn't fix the issue of weapons being samey or OP compared to the rest.
The point is to differentiate weapons by more than just damage making other weapon choices viable.

DND_Reborn · Jul 18, 2019

Sadras said:
Sure, but that doesn't fix the issue of weapons being samey or OP compared to the rest.
The point is to differentiate weapons by more than just damage making other weapon choices viable.

True, but like it or not, certain weapons are "better" than others. There is a historical reason why the arms race existed.

If you want the simplicity of 5E, damage is really the only differentiator. Unless you include things like AC adjustments, speed factors, reach, etc. and others into the mechanics of combat (thus, making it much more complicated), you're stuck with just damage. So, 5E adds Finesse and Light for specific options and features, but removed a bunch of stuff that could have been used.

Our options for Skewer, Stun, and Wound, even if only on critical hits, makes for at least some difference between say a Flail and a War Pick. They weigh the same, do the same damage, the only difference is bludgeoning vs. piercing. Other than creatures that might have a vulnerability to one of those, there is no distinction mechanically. Now there is a bit more with Stun vs. Skewer.... at least it is something.

oreofox · Jul 18, 2019

That's one thing I liked about the 3e/Pf weapons, that being the critical hit modifications. Some weapons crit more often (greatsword on a 19-20) or end up doing more damage on a crit (x3 with great axe, or x4 with a pick). So, you could crit on a 19 with a greatsword and deal 4d6 (4-24 dmg), or choose the great axe and crit dealing 3d12 (3-36 dmg). 5e makes the greatsword better as you will always deal minimum of 2 damage (before resistances). It's been tempting to port that over.

As for the topic at hand: nothing really pops into my mind when it comes to pedantry.

Jer · Jul 19, 2019

The PF2 threads reminded me of another pedantic complaint I have about D&D: The use of the word "feat" to mean "mechanical advantage of some kind for a character". Even after 20 years it still makes me go "why?" when I think about all of the names they could have used for something that gives you a few extra languages or a +2 bonus to a few skill checks or whatever and instead they chose to use something that prior to that meant basically "an accomplishment that required enormous effort and skill to achieve". Advantages, perks, benefits - there's a whole vocabulary available for that kind of mechanic, and they settled on the word "feat".

(And yeah, I know the history of it and that calling things like Power Attack and Whirlwind Attack a feat of strength or skill was where they started from and it blossomed out into a more general "advantage" system, but it still grates. Once they started moving down the path of the active "powers" that started them thinking about feats and into the more "generally beneficial" model, I wish they would have dropped the name "feat" from it.)

snickersnax · Jul 19, 2019

Barbarians get their class features because they embrace their animal natures, yet animals don't get any of these features...

...and every other situation where the fluff doesn't match the mechanics.

Michael Silverbane · Jul 19, 2019

The 5th edition of D&D was written by Frank Mentzer and published in 1983. The current edition of D&D is something like the 13th.

Barbarians get their strength from the power of their feelings, but are typically represented as having a poor Charisma, which measures your force of personality.