D&D 5E Balance Query Re: Homebrew Weapons

[Charlaquin]

I wouldn't do those either. I'd make a new weapon, or use the existing weapon as it is.

My point is that in those weapons are identical to each other, except in damage type. Why does the idea of an axe with the same statistics as a shortsword that deals slashing damage bother you when a scimitar with the same statistics as a shortsword that deals slashing damage evidently doesn’t?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My point is that in those weapons are identical to each other, except in damage type. Why does the idea of an axe with the same statistics as a shortsword that deals slashing damage bother you when a scimitar with the same statistics as a shortsword that deals slashing damage evidently doesn’t?

I can't throw the scimitar, therefor it isn't the throwable axe you're expecting me to imagine it as.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can't throw the scimitar, therefor it isn't the throwable axe you're expecting me to imagine it as.

You can throw a scimitar. Weapons without the thrown property can be thrown 20/60 feet. And why does a finesse axe need the thrown property anyway? It’d be perfectly balanced as just 1d6 light finesse martial weapon, and axes aren’t particularly built for throwing (and those that are aren’t really built for melee combat.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But why does a finesse axe need to the thrown property? You can throw any weapon 20/60 feet anyway, and most axes aren’t particularly built for throwing.

The point isn't to make a given mechanical thing, the point is that in the fiction there is a thing, that should be finesse, that is a throwable axe, and that I'd like to represent that mechanically, without just changing the handaxe itself to be simply the best simple weapon.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A rapier weighs about the same as an arming sword, the weight is just more concentrated near the back end, putting its point of balance closer to the hilt. It doesn’t exactly require more strength to use, it requires different strength - more in the forearm, wrist, and legs, as opposed to the upper arm(s) and core. That’s true of foils as well, fencing takes an incredible amount of lower body strength and balance.

Apologies, I was thinking historical longsword (= 2-handed weapon) not the D&D longsword. Having two hands on the weapon makes it much more usable by someone less strong, whereas, as you say, the rapier requires quite developed wrist and arm strength.

Of course, none of that really matters, because finesse in D&D isn’t about how much actual strength a weapon requires to use. It’s about how the weapon is perceived in pop culture and depicted in fiction. A rapier is seen as a weapon used by a dashing swashbuckler who fights with agility and grace over power and force, so it’s a finesse weapon. This is also the main reason there aren’t any axes with finesse. Accurate or not, they’re seen as more brutal, direct weapons than their more elegant counterparts in swords, so they lack finesse and have a bigger damage die.

Fair point.

But an estoc’s function is to penetrate small gaps in heavy armor - it is fundamentally designed for precision.

So is a longsword. When used against armour, it is not not designed to chop through, but to exploit gaps. The estoc is just a much more specialised version, used with two hands in a half-sword fashion to push through the weaker protection at joints and interfaces, as you say. It is similar weight and used with the same techniques as the historical longsword was.

 

[Charlaquin]

The point isn't to make a given mechanical thing, the point is that in the fiction there is a thing, that should be finesse, that is a throwable axe, and that I'd like to represent that mechanically, without just changing the handaxe itself to be simply the best simple weapon.

Ok, so your non-negotiables are:
• called an axe
• has the Finesse property
• has the Thrown property

So you could:
• Make it 1d6
• Make it 1d4 and light
• Make it 1d4 and versatile
• Make it strictly the best one-handed martial weapon

 

[Charlaquin]

Apologies, I was thinking historical longsword (= 2-handed weapon) not the D&D longsword. Having two hands on the weapon makes it much more usable by someone less strong, whereas, as you say, the rapier requires quite developed wrist and arm strength.

Yeah, I went with arming sword cause it’s kind of silly to compare a two-handed weapon to a one-handed weapon, as two-handed weapon requires far less strength to use. My point is that an estoc is to a longsword as a rapier is to an arming sword (in terms of design, not so much in terms of historical context.)

So is a longsword. When used against armour, it is not not designed to chop through, but to exploit gaps. The estoc is just a much more specialised version, used with two hands in a half-sword fashion to push through the weaker protection at joints and interfaces, as you say. It is similar weight and used with the same techniques as the historical longsword was.

Right, but an estoc is specialized for it, while a longsword is not. And what it’s specialized for is pinpoint precision, which to my mind qualifies it for finesse by 5e standards.

I mean, if I had my druthers, all weapons would use dex for to-hit and strength for damage, but that’s not how 5e does it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, so your non-negotiables are:
• called an axe
• has the Finesse property
• has the Thrown property

So you could:
• Make it 1d6
• Make it 1d4 and light
• Make it 1d4 and versatile
• Make it strictly the best one-handed martial weapon

I don't know why you're going so hard on this when I already gave up, in a reply to you, on the axe.

Like, just drop it. The solution is either to give up, or to rebalance the weapon table to allow for what it actually should be. I don't have time to rebalance the weapon table right now, so I'm just going to ignore the axe for now. Which I've already said.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

(and those that are aren’t really built for melee combat.)

This is incorrect. Every throw-weighted axe that isn't for sport that I have ever seen is an entirely viable melee weapon. They're also generally very light, and not a weapon of brute force.

But again, as I said in the OP, realism and historical cognates are irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah, sorry, I'm never going to take this stance seriously. I will never design anything for powergamers or to foil them, and that is the only lense through which I'd care about this argument.

That is entirely your prerogative.
You specifically asked about potential balance issues. You aren't required to take the help we try to offer seriously.

This is just a thing you're coming up with, not a feature of the system.

You asked me why I found the Finesse and Versatile properties incongruent when combined in a weapon. I told you, with reference to the mechanics to explain why it feels that way to me.
You asked me for my opinion. You're allowed to have a different one.

None of that makes any sense, IMO.

OK. I can break it down further. What part did you find incongruent?
Characterisation of D&D longswords as not Finesse weapons? My analysis of the katana's features?
My opinion as to how a sword with a curved handle would feel to actually use?
Thinking that from the description, it sounds like some weapons already covered by the longsword category?