Remathilis
Legend
I can endorse this list as well.
-
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!
D&D 5E Changes with Equipment, Weapons, Armor.
- Thread starter Kobold Stew
- Start date
I can endorse this list as well.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
The damage change does fix that, yes.
In terms of bows... I agree that there needs to be more advantages to using crossbows over regular bows if they are to maintain the same properties except crossbows add Loaded. Either damage for x-bows needs to be higher... regular bows cannot be fired at long range indoors (as Klaus mentioned), or even that regular bows have a minimum range that they cannot fire close than (for longbow especially). So you can't fire a longbow at a target 30 feet or less for example (since it needs the arc to be successful.)
But yeah... it can't just be Simple Weapon (crossbows) versus Martial Weapon (bows) for the simple fact that very few classes have proficiency in just Simple weapons, and those that do are the spellcasters that don't tend to use ranged weapon anyway because they have ranged spells.
And now that I think about it... they also should take a look at whether you actually need the Simple versus Martial categories anyway... considering most classes that would be just Simple, actually get a specifically written list of weapons they use instead (the druid, the monk). Either give those classes the Simple proficiency category... or else remove the Simple and Martial distinctions altogether and just do individual weapon lists for those classes who don't get every weapon. If barely any classes are getting just Simple weapons (in its entirety) then there's no point in having the category.
But yeah... it can't just be Simple Weapon (crossbows) versus Martial Weapon (bows) for the simple fact that very few classes have proficiency in just Simple weapons, and those that do are the spellcasters that don't tend to use ranged weapon anyway because they have ranged spells.
And now that I think about it... they also should take a look at whether you actually need the Simple versus Martial categories anyway... considering most classes that would be just Simple, actually get a specifically written list of weapons they use instead (the druid, the monk). Either give those classes the Simple proficiency category... or else remove the Simple and Martial distinctions altogether and just do individual weapon lists for those classes who don't get every weapon. If barely any classes are getting just Simple weapons (in its entirety) then there's no point in having the category.
I dislike having a light crossbow and a heavy crossbow in D&D. Heavy crossbows (the ones that crank) make a complete mockery of armor. They are the same exact problem child as black-powder weapons. It' s abridge too far for me.
Light crossbows of the step-and-draw variety are close enough to be considered on-par with D&D bows (we'll just put on our +3 Suspenders of Disbelief like we do for Longswords and Longbows being able to slash or pierce someone in proper armor.)
Pistol-like hand-crossbows are a joke. Drop them. Just have a single entry for Crossbow, of the step-draw variety. It had shorter range than a bow, more damage, reload, is a simple weapon, and can be shot (but not loaded) with one hand.
- Marty Lund
Light crossbows of the step-and-draw variety are close enough to be considered on-par with D&D bows (we'll just put on our +3 Suspenders of Disbelief like we do for Longswords and Longbows being able to slash or pierce someone in proper armor.)
Pistol-like hand-crossbows are a joke. Drop them. Just have a single entry for Crossbow, of the step-draw variety. It had shorter range than a bow, more damage, reload, is a simple weapon, and can be shot (but not loaded) with one hand.
- Marty Lund
This would be an excellent improvement. Good call.
I agree- they're a vanity weapon, and 1d8 damage is going to keep them too prominent. I would roll hand crossbows into blowguns -- 1 point damage, with the possibility of adding poison to a needle being fired.
That's too bad. The math often favours rogues with two weapons because it increases the chance to do Sneak Attack damage. One fix would be to change the wording on the limitation of Sneak Attack from "You can use this feature once per turn" to "You can attempt to use this feature once per turn" -- just with that, the primary incentive for TWF Rogues disappears. I love playing Rogues, and I'd have no problems with this sort of a limitation.
(Also -- consider the whip! Sneak attack with reach!)
Rr
One of the problems I always have with armor and weapons in D&D is my knowledge of real medieval armor and weapons. Banded armor is not real. Sure, there have been armors that consisted of mainly horizontal plates (roman lorica segmenta) but there is no historical evidence of banded mail. Splinted armor was real, consisting of vertical strips of iron or steel riveted to a leather backing, but it was normally only used for arm and leg armor. It was a transitional period armor that bridged the gap between mail and plate during the 12th - 14th century. Everyone has heard of chainmail (known simply as "mail" in medieval times) which was interlocked rings of iron that were riveted closed (with either wedges or pins depending on the time period) interlocked with alternating rows of solid rings punched from sheets. But this mail armor never "went away" or got fully replaced by some newer armor. When the coat of plates began to be worn in the 11th century, it was worn over the existing mail hauberk. A coat of plates is a bunch of overlapping iron or steel plates riveted to a leather or fabric shell that initially covered only the chest, but evolved into an armor that covered the body from neck to thigh with overlapping plates of varying size and shape. The coat of plates evolved to include a breastplate instead of multiple chest plates, but all these were worn on top of a mail hauberk. Even the fantastic harnesses of the early renaissance were worn with patches of mail sewn to a fabric arming coat worn under the plate armor so as to provide protection for the vulnerable joints. The breastplate as a category of armor is very misleading. Many different types of armor had a breastplate as one of the pieces. Late medieval coats of plates, like the statue of St.George in the Prague cathedral had them, up until the early renaissance when the full plate harness that people typically think of today when you say "knight in shining armor" became possible. Then it was normally worn together with another plate covering the back (yes, a breastplate only covers the front!). Brigandine was a late medieval development and was essentially a coat of plates using many small overlapping steel plates on the inside, riveted to a leather or fabric outer covering on the outside. The main difference being the size of the plates, the arrangement of the rivets holding them on (usually row upon row of small groups of 3 rivets for each plate) and the more current fashion-oriented style of the fit compared to the older coat of plates. I never understood "half plate" as an armor type either. Nobody ever went to battle intentionally wearing only half of their harness. A full plate harness consists of hundreds of interlocking, overlapping, articulated plates. All of which depend on the fit of the others. Wearing half of a plate harness is impractical. The closest thing to this might be the transitional late medieval 14th century harness consisting of a covered breastplate and full plate arms and legs. While we're discussing that, the full plate legs developed rather early, and were the first part of the body to enjoy full plate armor. Plate arms developed more slowly, but were common long before the breastplate.
There is much much more to consider about armor, not the least of which is the rather ridiculous "maximum dexterity bonus" that varies greatly from one type of armor to another, even within the general types of light medium and heavy. Maybe some day I'll make a full topic on the forums.
Cheers,
Scott
One of the problems I always have with armor and weapons in D&D is my knowledge of real medieval armor and weapons. Banded armor is not real. Sure, there have been armors that consisted of mainly horizontal plates (roman lorica segmenta) but there is no historical evidence of banded mail. Splinted armor was real, consisting of vertical strips of iron or steel riveted to a leather backing, but it was normally only used for arm and leg armor. It was a transitional period armor that bridged the gap between mail and plate during the 12th - 14th century. Everyone has heard of chainmail (known simply as "mail" in medieval times) which was interlocked rings of iron that were riveted closed (with either wedges or pins depending on the time period) interlocked with alternating rows of solid rings punched from sheets. But this mail armor never "went away" or got fully replaced by some newer armor. When the coat of plates began to be worn in the 11th century, it was worn over the existing mail hauberk. A coat of plates is a bunch of overlapping iron or steel plates riveted to a leather or fabric shell that initially covered only the chest, but evolved into an armor that covered the body from neck to thigh with overlapping plates of varying size and shape. The coat of plates evolved to include a breastplate instead of multiple chest plates, but all these were worn on top of a mail hauberk. Even the fantastic harnesses of the early renaissance were worn with patches of mail sewn to a fabric arming coat worn under the plate armor so as to provide protection for the vulnerable joints. The breastplate as a category of armor is very misleading. Many different types of armor had a breastplate as one of the pieces. Late medieval coats of plates, like the statue of St.George in the Prague cathedral had them, up until the early renaissance when the full plate harness that people typically think of today when you say "knight in shining armor" became possible. Then it was normally worn together with another plate covering the back (yes, a breastplate only covers the front!). Brigandine was a late medieval development and was essentially a coat of plates using many small overlapping steel plates on the inside, riveted to a leather or fabric outer covering on the outside. The main difference being the size of the plates, the arrangement of the rivets holding them on (usually row upon row of small groups of 3 rivets for each plate) and the more current fashion-oriented style of the fit compared to the older coat of plates. I never understood "half plate" as an armor type either. Nobody ever went to battle intentionally wearing only half of their harness. A full plate harness consists of hundreds of interlocking, overlapping, articulated plates. All of which depend on the fit of the others. Wearing half of a plate harness is impractical. The closest thing to this might be the transitional late medieval 14th century harness consisting of a covered breastplate and full plate arms and legs. While we're discussing that, the full plate legs developed rather early, and were the first part of the body to enjoy full plate armor. Plate arms developed more slowly, but were common long before the breastplate.
There is much much more to consider about armor, not the least of which is the rather ridiculous "maximum dexterity bonus" that varies greatly from one type of armor to another, even within the general types of light medium and heavy. Maybe some day I'll make a full topic on the forums.
Cheers,
Scott
I think this would only work if the whip deals lethal damage, which in 3.x at least, it doesn't.
The whip does 1d4 slashing damage, and +DEX to hit. It doesn't get bonus damage from your ability, but it will get sneak attack damage.
Similar Threads
