D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[UngeheuerLich]

Yea, I don't see a need to nerf Rogues or Dex. But I also like making mechanics and home brewing.

So...

Finesse: you can use Dex to make attack rolls, still use Str for damage.

Rogues: sneak attacks are a d8.

Rangers: hunters mark is a cantrip, no concentration

Nope. That is terrible. I see no reason to take away damage from finesse weapons when used by fighters. I´d rather take it away from ranged weapons beyond 30ft. My probem is less with dex balance but ranged vs melee.

 

[Pauln6]

Nope. That is terrible. I see no reason to take away damage from finesse weapons when used by fighters. I´d rather take it away from ranged weapons beyond 30ft. My probem is less with dex balance but ranged vs melee.

It's easier to patch damage for fighters and rangers. There is a question about how you patch it, I suppose, since fighters have to pick one fighting style without feat investment. I suppose you could have separate fighting styles so TWF adds your dexterity bonus or +2 to damage, whichever is lower, to any weapon attacks using dexterity plus you could adjust duelist to add half your dex bonus to the +2 damage? Or, do you patch it at +2 to damage or half your proficiency bonus etc. My maths are terrible but it is patchable.

 

[ECMO3]

STR weapons are too weak, or DEX are too strong, but I'm not in favor of lots of d2,d3 or d4 weapons.

I.E. if you reduce rapier to d6, then shortsword/scimitar needs to be d4 and dagger d2.

I don't think this is true. Strength melee weapons already do more damage than dex weapons, and people with strength can even use finesse weapons. Moving dagger to d2 means it is a d2 for strength players too.

Strength weapons are perfectly placed right now, being a little bit more powerful than dex weapons. No reason to make them higher or more complicated. It just won't be good for the game or people's enjoyment. I agree that dexterity is more powerful but these kind of attempts to "fix" it will hurt the game and player's fun.

People who want to really powergame can always play a dexterity-based wizard if they want an optimal melee build, and they can still play a plethora of other classes and combos and still be effective, including a strength martial.

 

[Horwath]

It was not just damage that is being adjusted for with the bonus and feat, the two combined offset the many ways dex is by far better than strength with a trivial to point out choice that avoids the endless debate and complaints. 5e changed the baseline and didn't do anything to offset the resulting problems caused by one attribute being so much better than the other. Simply rolling back to a known good enough state is not "hate". if anything , having that called "all this hate" shows the indefensible state currently in place

5E didn't change it, 4E did with various classes.
also 3.5e/PF1 did it with feats/class features.

having to take a feat is just a boring feat tax, lower base weapon damage is good enough if it really present, and in case of 5E rapier/longsword is not. boosting longsword to d10 or even d12(Heavy) would be good enough for balance.

off-topic, the whole 5E weapons table is complete incoherent and inconsistent mess, but that is another topic to open here.

 

[Horwath]

I don't think this is true. Strength melee weapons already do more damage than dex weapons, and people with strength can even use finesse weapons. Moving dagger to d2 means it is a d2 for strength players too.

Strength weapons are perfectly placed right now, being a little bit more powerful than dex weapons. No reason to make them higher or more complicated. It just won't be good for the game or people's enjoyment. I agree that dexterity is more powerful but these kind of attempts to "fix" it will hurt the game and player's fun.

People who want to really powergame can always play a dexterity-based wizard if they want an optimal melee build, and they can still play a plethora of other classes and combos and still be effective, including a strength martial.

how is longsword(d8) better than rapier(d8) if rapier can utilize two stats for attack and can utilize ranged stat(dex) with melee attacks?


"if I were army quartermaster, I would only(outside reach weapons) order rapiers for all, might get a better bulk discount."

 

[mellored]

Nope. That is terrible. I see no reason to take away damage from finesse weapons when used by fighters. I´d rather take it away from ranged weapons beyond 30ft. My probem is less with dex balance but ranged vs melee.

I see no reason to change things. But I can keep making stuff up.

Ranged attacks don't get Dex.

+1magic arrows are now a very common magic item, stacks with magic bows.

 

[mellored]

off-topic, the whole 5E weapons table is complete incoherent and inconsistent mess, but that is another topic to open here.

I think it's quite well done, especiallyconsidering their starting point. There still a few duds, but

i wouldn't mind them being reorganized by mastery though. Doing it by name doesn't help much


Cleave, Heavy, two handed
1d12 S
1d10 S with reach

Graze, heavy, two handed
2d6 S
1d10 S with reach

Nick, light
1d6 S with finesse
1d4 P with finesse and thrown

Push
1d8 B
1d10 B with reach and two handed

Sap
1d8, S, P, or B

Slow
1d4 reach
Ranged

Topple
1d8 P, thrown
1d10 P with reach and two handed
2d6 B with two handed

Vex
1d8 P, with finesse and light
Ranged

* didn't cover all weapon, but close enough.

 

[tetrasodium]

off-topic, the whole 5E weapons table is complete incoherent and inconsistent mess, but that is another topic to open here.

100% correct, but the value of dex over strength goes well beyond the weapons tables

5E didn't change it, 4E did with various classes.
also 3.5e/PF1 did it with feats/class features.

5e also rolled back a lot of the other changes 4e made. Many of those reversion cause it to matter more or once again that dex is a better attribute in many many ways.

having to take a feat is just a boring feat tax, lower base weapon damage is good enough if it really present, and in case of 5E

No, having a feat presents a choice. Either your dex build is leaning into the non damage areas where dex excels at the cost of accepting that damage may be second or third tier if not elevated with class features like sneak attack or you are accepting those non damage strengths at the cost of needing to invest more heavily in lifting your damage back towards baseline first or second tier instead of further investing in elevating those secondary benefits of dex.

rapier/longsword is not. boosting longsword to d10 or even d12(Heavy) would be good enough for balance.

Creating new problems in order to avoid fixing an obvious one that was once known accepted and handled is not a good solution

 

[Pauln6]

100% correct, but the value of dex over strength goes well beyond the weapons tables

5e also rolled back a lot of the other changes 4e made. Many of those reversion cause it to matter more or once again that dex is a better attribute in many many ways.

No, having a feat presents a choice. Either your dex build is leaning into the non damage areas where dex excels at the cost of accepting that damage may be second or third tier if not elevated with class features like sneak attack or you are accepting those non damage strengths at the cost of needing to invest more heavily in lifting your damage back towards baseline first or second tier instead of further investing in elevating those secondary benefits of dex.

Creating new problems in order to avoid fixing an obvious one that was once known accepted and handled is not a good solution

Yeah, rogues don't really live for dex to damage since they get only one attack per round and most of their damage comes from sneak attack. Now that classic light weapons don't require a bonus action in off-hand, the TWF rogue, is getting free damage anyway.

So that leaves fighters and rangers. Other classes might use dex builds but light weapon damage is not going be their main focus. Rangers have been beefed up quite a bit now and max out at 2 attacks, so fighters are going to feel it more so it feels like fighting styles are probably the best place to patch it. You could tweak the ranged one as +2 to attack and +1 damage like specialisation in 1e. You could tweak TWF to allow Strength or half your dex damage to both attacks (the bonus damage from dexterity never exceeds +2); duellist could add half your strength or dex bonus to damage if not wielding a weapon in your other hand etc. I think heavy weapons should just do x3 damage on a crit.

 

[Horwath]

I think it's quite well done, especiallyconsidering their starting point. There still a few duds, but

i wouldn't mind them being reorganized by mastery though. Doing it by name doesn't help much

masteries should be equal overall, depending on your build and party composition.
and fighters can later change then around, withing rules.
IMHO, all should be able to do that from 1st level, but hey...
fighters should instead get ability to apply 2 effects per attack instead of one. Now that would be a real master of arms.

but for weapons there are no clear rules what property cost damage and how much.

I.E:

for simple weapons:
quarterstaff and greatclub both have same 2Handed damage yet, quarterstaff can be used onehanded if needed??
then handaxe has same damage as Mace, but it's also light and can be thrown(badly).
club is also light and cannot be thrown, yet has less damage than handaxe??
dagger is same damage as club, both light, but dagger also gets finesse and thrown?
and then there is spear with same damage as quarterstaff, both for 1H and 2H usage, but in addition can be thrown.

martial weapons:

half of d8 str based weapons do not have Versatile, not that I care, useless as it is, outside low level monks, I have not seen it used in 10 years so whatever but some consistency would not hurt here.

then we have the classic 1d12 vs 2d6 dilemma, a d12 greataxe that was made mechanically for half-orc barbarian and no one else in the whole game.

and OFC rapier with finesse having same damage as STR only weapons.
same goes for shortswords, dagger, scimitars and similar.

and there is lack of 2Handed finesse weapons.

and now trident is same damage as longsword but gets thrown added to it for free.


and now for ranged weapons:

Crossbows:
some are some simple and some are martial?
why?

it's the same weapon with different pull weight.
you learn to shoot one in about 1 minute, you learn them all.

Bows:
same thing, one simple, one martial?
no matter the "weight" of the bow, they are hard to learn. both should be martial weapons.

sling.
this should be martial weapon, I tried it, I had more luck with bows than with slings on 1st try.
also, you can combine it with a shield.

dart is ok as simple.