Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8294798" data-attributes="member: 6802951">That's fine. I get the distinction that as an optional module, you can object to the word banned as a little too strong if the DM simply chooses not to allow it.But my experience is that most DMs do allow it, even though in many games players may not choose to take a feat.A couple of pages back someone specifically stated that WotC said most players do not play in games where feats were allowed.That is entirely different, and separate from the "most players do not take feats" statement that they have made, and that I was aware of. I can't speak for most publications and whether they contained feats. But I'm sure Eberron did.   . . . Maybe you would like your character to use a warhammer? Or a Flail?This was a deliberate choice: If you want your character to use a warhammer, you are free to make that choice. If the Warhammer, Battle-axe, Longsword had different properties, then there would be a "best choice" for a given character, and so the player would feel required to pick that one, even if they wanted their character to use one of the others.There have been a number of attempted redesigns of the weapon table suggested on ENworld. Some of these just involved giving weapons Finesse and an Asian name. Others went into more depth though, and if you do a search, you may be able to mine them for inspiration. Pretty sure that that was included like the greatclub and Hide armour: its an iconic weapon used by a number of adversaries, but wasn't necessarily there to be a prime choice for a player character.Now the weapon table certainly has things that I object to: I've houseruled Quarterstaves as two-handed weapons, and Bows as Finesse almost since I began DMing 5e. But overall I like the fact that practically all weapons are represented there, particularly if you're OK with just changing the weapon type. Uh, you can control its position, lock it with the guard, or even bind it.So . . . yes you can, if that is what you mean by grab.This is like the "flails bypass shields" myth, and one of the reasons that 5e generally grants the capability for special attacks as a function of the user, not the weapon.Now, I'd definitely like to see more capabilities like shoving, grappling, and disarming granted as martial options. I'm just not sure that they should be locked behind weapon types. I will await with interest.</blockquote>

Verification