D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[GrimCo]

Well, weapon choices are kind of meh. You pick type of weapon (1h light, 1h, 1h finesse, 2 hand, 2 hand with reach, versatile) and damage type (b,p,s). After that, there is no distinction. FE Battleaxe and Longsword are identical. Martial, versatile slashing weapons. There isn't any reason to pick one over the other except for aesthetics. They could easily just group it by damage dice, type and properties and be done with it.

Say what you want, but at least in 3.5, there was mechanical benefits of choosing one weapon over the other, mainly crit range and crit modifier. And yes, i'm still salty they ditched scythe. I loved that thing. x4 crit mod was sooo satisfying once you critted.

 

[ECMO3]

i'm not referencing weapon masteries, i honestly forgot they existed, i was just using versatile property as it's used in 2014 to mean 'there are alternative stats if you weild this with 2 hands instead of just 1.'

you dont see the point in providing options?

No I like providing options, I don't see the value in mechanical differences between those options when you are talking about mundane gear like shields (or Pole Arms).

From a game point of view I don;t see the value in giving the guy with a tower shield a higher plus than the guy with the normal shield. I don't think this makes the game more fun. Being able to have a tower shield (or alternatively being able to say my shield is a tower shield) does improve the game.

Honestly I would just do away with the shield bonus to AC all together. Make shields flavor only like most armor accessories are.

i REALLY can't understand this point of view, like, you're advocating for identical and redundant options because they have different flavour
it bothered me so much that those weapons existed and had identical stats because at that point you're just wasting page space, this is where 'flavour is free' can run wild, we can make one D10, reach, 2-handed, heavy polearm and people can make a halberd, glaive, nagitina, partizan, poleaxe, fauchard or guisarme out of it, we don't need 7 different writeups for mechanically identical aesthetically different peices of gear.

Ok then I guess we don't need 3 writeups for shields?

My point is I think from a flavor and thematic point of view you should be able to have a tower shield or a buckler or a viking shield or a Templar Shield but they should all function the same. If you want multiple lines to talk about them that is ok.

Do you think we were better served by 1E where we had separate and distinct statistics for all those Pole Arms you mention?

 

[Chaosmancer]

no reason not to, other than y'know, having shield proficiency or not,

personally i see this as an opportunity to separate shields from basically being medium armour proficiency.5 and having shields be their own independent thing from your level of armour training that could provide room for maybe actually doing something interesting with them.

I don't see that making much of a difference, everyone who cares about shields without a feat has shield proficiency. Making Shield Proficiency take a second feat to get after getting medium armor won't make them any more interesting for those people who already have them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am saying have the same +X, that is part of the mechanics. Distinguish the different types of shields only by description, make it theme.

Wear a buckler and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it. Wear a tower shield and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it.

Oh sure, that is essentially how it works now. That just... has zero interest for me. It feels weird to start specifically calling them out as big or small, if they mechanically are all identical.

And the original post you were quoting showed them having different mechanics for different AC values, for the reasons I discussed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, weapon choices are kind of meh. You pick type of weapon (1h light, 1h, 1h finesse, 2 hand, 2 hand with reach, versatile) and damage type (b,p,s). After that, there is no distinction. FE Battleaxe and Longsword are identical. Martial, versatile slashing weapons. There isn't any reason to pick one over the other except for aesthetics. They could easily just group it by damage dice, type and properties and be done with it.

Say what you want, but at least in 3.5, there was mechanical benefits of choosing one weapon over the other, mainly crit range and crit modifier. And yes, i'm still salty they ditched scythe. I loved that thing. x4 crit mod was sooo satisfying once you critted.

Which, to be fair, is something they have looked to change with the new Weapon Mastery properties. Whether or not it goes far enough? Can't say.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No I like providing options, I don't see the value in mechanical differences between those options when you are talking about mundane gear like shields (or Pole Arms).

From a game point of view I don;t see the value in giving the guy with a tower shield a higher plus than the guy with the normal shield. I don't think this makes the game more fun. Being able to have a tower shield (or alternatively being able to say my shield is a tower shield) does improve the game.

Honestly I would just do away with the shield bonus to AC all together. Make shields flavor only like most armor accessories are.

so you think shortsword, scimitar, longsword, rapier and greatsword should all just have the same statblock because they're all just 'different kinds of the same mundane gear, the sword'? by the metrics of 'value' you seem to be presenting me with i must assume so, because the only real difference between weapons and shields in this scenario is that the type of number they're affecting: mundane gear offering different stats with a trade off of power versus the number of hands you're using and the stat you would be be reliant on to use it.

Ok then I guess we don't need 3 writeups for shields?

NO! do you genuinely think that was what i was saying at all? i'm saying that if there are choices presented then they should be meaningful ones, and if the options aren't meaningful then why is the choice being offered at all? i'm also personally inclined to think that having more kinds of choice is typically better for providing fun.

My point is I think from a flavor and thematic point of view you should be able to have a tower shield or a buckler or a viking shield or a Templar Shield but they should all function the same. If you want multiple lines to talk about them that is ok.

Do you think we were better served by 1E where we had separate and distinct statistics for all those Pole Arms you mention?

yes i do think that's better, if those polearms are all providing distinct opportunites for a character's build.

 

[Neonchameleon]

so you think shortsword, scimitar, longsword, rapier and greatsword should all just have the same statblock because they're all just 'different kinds of the same mundane gear, the sword'?

I think the 13th Age way is better than the D&D way here. And that damage dice should be primarily by wielder and number of hands used. And that a one handed martial weapon (e.g. longsword, rapier, shortsword, or scimitar) should all do the same damage in the hands of a fighter. But whereas they do d8 damage in the hands of a fighter the only thing stopping a wizard wielding them is that they do the same D4 damage in a wizard's hands as any other one handed weapon.

 

[ECMO3]

Oh sure, that is essentially how it works now. That just... has zero interest for me. It feels weird to start specifically calling them out as big or small, if they mechanically are all identical.

Well if it matters to your character concept then it matters. A Zorro like character running around with a tower shield does not make a lot of sense, you want that guy to have a buckler.

And the original post you were quoting showed them having different mechanics for different AC values, for the reasons I discussed.

That was poorly worded by me. What I said was they should have the same mechanics and then offered two different examples for what those mechanics could be (one or the other but it would apply to all shields). I also offered a 3rd option where they gave no bonus at all like current helmets and gauntlets.

I can see that was a poor job articulating that.

 

[ECMO3]

so you think shortsword, scimitar, longsword, rapier and greatsword should all just have the same statblock because they're all just 'different kinds of the same mundane gear, the sword'?

I would like to see Scimitar, Longsword and Rapier have the same statistics certainly. I don't think the others should be identical to those, but it would not bother me that much if they were.

Also weapons are a bit different than shields which are really part of armor.

NO! do you genuinely think that was what i was saying at all? i'm saying that if there are choices presented then they should be meaningful ones,

Ok so your arguement was it is a waste of space to print redundant options (like Halberd and Glaive) and that flavor is free. I personally would not mind having multiple shields with the same stats, or 30 Polearms with the same stats, taking up space is not something that bothers me.

But if it is easier to just say "Pole Arm (all of them)" or "Shields (all of them)" that would be better than having multiple types with different statistics IMO.

I see value in offering different thematic choices for similar things, I don't see nearly as much value in giving those things different mechanics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well if it matters to your character concept then it matters. A Zorro like character running around with a tower shield does not make a lot of sense, you want that guy to have a buckler.

I do? Why?

He never used a buckler. It isn't part of the character concept in the first place. So why would I include it?

That was poorly worded by me. What I said was they should have the same mechanics and then offered two different examples for what those mechanics could be (one or the other but it would apply to all shields). I also offered a 3rd option where they gave no bonus at all like current helmets and gauntlets.

I can see that was a poor job articulating that.

Right, but you seem to have missed my point.

You had responded to CreamCloud saying you don't want different shield mechanics. I was pointing out that, if you are adding bucklers and Tower Shields in the way CreamCloud suggested... you kind of need them. You can't have a shield that offers +1 and a shield that offers +2 that are otherwise identical, or there is no reason to have the +1 version.

Now, if you want to have all shields give a +2, but just reflavor it for the size you can.... but what's the point? You aren't adding anything except declaring a look, and no one has been saying you can't have the look. The look isn't why the point that Rogue's don't have shield proficiency was brought up. You are not adding anything, just stating something we already know. That aesthetics are flexible. And we know this. I had a rapier in one game that looked like this

I don't think just saying that shields can be small really changes anything.