D&D 5E Rethinking weapons categories and proficiencies: Using strength as requirement instead of class proficiencies.

[5ekyu]

Shouldnt ranged weapons then get a minimal dex score? Seems to me hitting with a sling or a crossbow should require a degree of dex if using daggers in both hands tequires like 12 str.

So why not slapping ranged weapons with minimal dex scores for ranged attacks?

Any bowler or baseball pitcher can point out that power without accuracy is of little value for getting results.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

Shouldnt ranged weapons then get a minimal dex score? Seems to me hitting with a sling or a crossbow should require a degree of dex if using daggers in both hands tequires like 12 str.

So why not slapping ranged weapons with minimal dex scores for ranged attacks?

Any bowler or baseball pitcher can point out that power without accuracy is of little value for getting results.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Dex is for that irrelevant.

You are going to have penalty of other sort.

Like a bad aim.

Point of this is to have sufficient strength so you can use the weapon without it being too cumbersome for you.

If you ever tried to shoot a bow that is too "heavy" for you. Your arms start to shake as soon as you come to full draw. No dexterity in the world will help you if you do not have muscles to hold the bow steady so you can aim it.

 

[5ekyu]

Dex is for that irrelevant.

You are going to have penalty of other sort.

Like a bad aim.

Point of this is to have sufficient strength so you can use the weapon without it being too cumbersome for you.

If you ever tried to shoot a bow that is too "heavy" for you. Your arms start to shake as soon as you come to full draw. No dexterity in the world will help you if you do not have muscles to hold the bow steady so you can aim it.

Well thing is i have bad ranged "accuracy" and while i can easily "wield" a pool cue or darts or a badmonton racket, my accuracy with such is for crap.

You allow for dex to be used for ranged attacks (which acknowledges it plays a role in accuracy) and yet you seem to not see any sort of minimal dexterity threshold like you want to use for other attacks? That is very inconsistent.

Also, you mention pulling and holding a bow - what about loaded crossbows? is their damage dice limit supposed to reporesent the strength just needed to hold them up - since there the pull and shoot are very different things?

heck, why cant a strong guy be clumsy and slow with his sword too? Strong and powerful does not equate to accurate or well-timed - a very powerful blow swung at the spot i was just in... well lots of good that does you... wait what is the stat that affects timing of stuff - yeah its dex.

If DEX applies to chance to hit ALL attacks - as you describe when it is take the higher - why then does STR alone become the deciding factor for "based on this you might suffer a DISAD for your attack roll" if indeed the goal is to open all weapons to all classes?

Why not say "must have a DEX or STR equal to X or better to avoid disadvantage" or ""must have a DEX AND STR equal to X or better to avoid disadvantage" if the actual goal as stated is to open up all weapons to all classes and provide an ATTRIBUTE mechanic for making them effective.

That stated GOAL does not include "and make strength great again" or any sort of preference for strength over dex so why then do you see it as good for it to so favor HIGH STR builds over HIGH DEX builds - which this system definitely shifts towards?

You mention a half-orc wizard with str 16 and int 14 iirc - well what about an Elven wizard with 16 dex and 14 int - shouldn't that also get as many weapons available as the orc if the goal is to just make weapons available ability based and not class/feat based?

or is the goal really to give more to strength based builds and less to dex based builds? cuz, it does that.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Dex is for that irrelevant.

You are going to have penalty of other sort.

Like a bad aim.

Point of this is to have sufficient strength so you can use the weapon without it being too cumbersome for you.

If you ever tried to shoot a bow that is too "heavy" for you. Your arms start to shake as soon as you come to full draw. No dexterity in the world will help you if you do not have muscles to hold the bow steady so you can aim it.

That makes sense for bows, slings and thrown weapons, but as 5eKyu points out, less for crossbows.
I'd suggest you change the penalty for having insufficient Str to requiring extra time to load rather than disadvantage on attack rolls for crossbows.

 

[Horwath]

That makes sense for bows, slings and thrown weapons, but as 5eKyu points out, less for crossbows.
I'd suggest you change the penalty for having insufficient Str to requiring extra time to load rather than disadvantage on attack rolls for crossbows.

that is why I didnt even put any stats for crossbows yet.

But I would tie str to the speed of crossbow reloading.

i.e.
heavy crossbow
str 10: reload Action
str 14: reload Bonus action
str 18: reload Free

 

[5ekyu]

So if the goal again is to unlock proficiency from class and make it more "organic" tied to attributes to support off-constructs - why is it that ARMOR proficiencies (which already have strength built in for disads where appropriate) get the same "organic" improvements?

Wouldn't my strength 16 half orc wizard also get heavy armor training with my greataxe, glaive and halberd training?

if your wizard is gonna go swinging that greataxe and poking with that pike, should be doing it in heavier armors too, right, since class is not limiting that gear training access just muscle?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

that is why I didnt even put any stats for crossbows yet.

But I would tie str to the speed of crossbow reloading.

i.e.
heavy crossbow
str 10: reload Action
str 14: reload Bonus action
str 18: reload Free

Fair enough. I assumed that crossbows were already part of your tables.

Personally I would adjust the action requirements up a notch on your above suggestion. So an 18 Str is required to load as a bonus action, Str 14 takes an action, Str 12 for 2 actions etc.
(Its still rather unrealistic to think that even a powerful human could cock a 700+lb crossbow so easily. But making someone sit out for multiple rounds is something that 5e generally (and rightly IMO) tries to avoid.)

You would need to decide whether Crossbow Expert feat would remove the action requirement completely no matter the Str, or maybe just improve by one step.

 

[Horwath]

Fair enough. I assumed that crossbows were already part of your tables.

Personally I would adjust the action requirements up a notch on your above suggestion. So an 18 Str is required to load as a bonus action, Str 14 takes an action, Str 12 for 2 actions etc.
(Its still rather unrealistic to think that even a powerful human could cock a 700+lb crossbow so easily. But making someone sit out for multiple rounds is something that 5e generally (and rightly IMO) tries to avoid.)

You would need to decide whether Crossbow Expert feat would remove the action requirement completely no matter the Str, or maybe just improve by one step.

Yes, I would also like to avoid spending 2 turns loading a bolt.

Either reduce the category by one step or reduce str requirement by 2.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, I would also like to avoid spending 2 turns loading a bolt.

Either reduce the category by one step or reduce str requirement by 2.

I think that crossbows would be used in 2 different ways in the system:
1) People would pick a crossbow with a dice sized to what they can load and shoot every round.

2) People will carry a couple of crossbows sized to the maximum dice possible for the system and treat them as one-shot weapons, reloading them out of combat when they can spare a few minutes.