5.5E Weapon and Armor categories and training in them. Do we still need them?

Well, difference is in larger HD, extra attack(s), fighting styles, attack riders, choice of feats, investment in STR/DEX.

And it will cut down on the cheese: 1st level fighter, then wizard X
not to mention a wizard with the same dex as the fighter has equal +1 hit at every level anyway
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ReadyButNot

Explorer
Oh it wasn't made up, it was just something else interpreted merely from its appearance.

Edit: Oh hell, there goes my afternoon. So many interesting videos....

a man of culture.jpg
 


Andvari

Explorer
I can’t remember which game, but there is one where you just do your class’ HD in damage regardless of weapon choice. So a wizard can wield a sword, but it does 1d6 damage, while a paladin using it does 1d10. Pretty simple.

At least until a player figures out a dagger does the same damage as the sword, but is easier to hide and can be thrown. But you could apply some generalized modifiers to balance weapons. -1 if throwable, -1 if small, +2 if two-handed etc.
 

Its an interesting idea. I'd be in favour of it being developed further.

I do have a few nitpicks about its actual application there however: (Falchions being a 2-handed weapon. The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place. Needing to be stronger to wear plate than you do to wear chain mail. A suit of plate needing absolute peak human strength to wear effectively. Etc.)

:hmm:
 

ReadyButNot

Explorer
The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place.
...longswords. that's. that's longswords. two-handed finesse weapon. that's literally just a longsword.
but yeah i didn't even look at the strength requirements for the armors those are ridiculous lmao. 14 strength to wear a hauberk? i'd be surprised if someone with 12 strength couldn't wear plate without...halving their speed. sheesh.
 

CreamCloud0

Adventurer
Personally I think too many classes get full martial proficiency, martial weapons would be so much more meaningful if classes that got any martial weapons only got say, four appropriate ones, then the few you did get would be more significant, (and a boon to the fighter being the only one to get full access)

Armour classification needs more nuance too but I don’t know what I’d do with that, maybe you could have a max ‘equip weight capacity’ between weapons, armour and shield so unless you’d maxed your strength score you’d have to compromise between the heaviest good armour (in your equipable category) and a light weapon (or vice-versa) or having both a medium weight armour and weapon
Edit: so suppose it works like your max weight capacity is 5+str, simple weapons range from 1-3 weight, martial 3-5, then armour is 1-5 for light, 2-6 for med and 3-7 for heavy, shields are 2
 
Last edited:

Honestly, if I wanted customizable weapon details, I'd play PF2. (Oh wait! I do!) If anything, DnD should go the way of 13th Age and make weapons and armor simpler and more re-fluff-able by just having the numbers assigned by class'

ie:
Paladin: AC = 14+prof
Weapons: 2-handed: 2d6+str (or 1d10+str for reach weapons)
1-handed: 1d8+str
ranged: 1d6
 

Horwath

Hero
Its an interesting idea. I'd be in favour of it being developed further.

I do have a few nitpicks about its actual application there however: (Falchions being a 2-handed weapon. The concept of Finesse being compatible with a 2-handed weapon in the first place. Needing to be stronger to wear plate than you do to wear chain mail. A suit of plate needing absolute peak human strength to wear effectively. Etc.)

:hmm:
those are put there for balance.

To give STR value over DEX.

So that for AC, you either invest in DEX or STR.

Also, falchion was just an example.
And, finesse weapons cannot be Heavy, so you are losing possibly 2 damage steps with 2Handed weapon.
d12 finesse 2Handed weapon vs. d8 finesse 1Handed weapon, seems about right.
 


I can’t remember which game, but there is one where you just do your class’ HD in damage regardless of weapon choice. So a wizard can wield a sword, but it does 1d6 damage, while a paladin using it does 1d10. Pretty simple.

At least until a player figures out a dagger does the same damage as the sword, but is easier to hide and can be thrown. But you could apply some generalized modifiers to balance weapons. -1 if throwable, -1 if small, +2 if two-handed etc.
It's not like the monk's fists are bigger or sharper than anyone else's, they just use them better. HP, Armor, Damage, etc are all abstractions anyways.
 


Absolutely a NO for me. I want armor and weapons to become more meaningful, not less. While your armor table starts to move in my direction, I'd rather have a proficiency requirement for each armor, not a category.

I'm hoping for them to make a return in later editions with weapon choice mattering to how your character fights.
Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.
I'm clearly talking about myself (as a fighter player) and how paternalistic playtesters decided the fighter needed to be kept simple as a dedicated noob class.
I remember the contentious debates during the playtest. Given that I started in 1E, where the PHB assumes the player can read and figure out some rather complicated charts (e.g. weapon vs AC), the idea that there has to be a simple option feels condescending to me.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.
I'd rather DMs and adventures stopping the annoying practice of randomized treasure or at least make transference of magic properties easy and affordable.
 


Yeah, I'd love fighters having maneuvers based on weapon wielded. And more importantly, giving them all the maneuvers, so they arent hosed based on whatever gear they find.

Suggestions pulled out of my butt, balance untested.

Wide Sweep - Spend an action to attack a number of adjacent targets equal to your proficiency bonus. Requirement: 2 handed axe, sword, or hammer. At level 11 and 15 this attack deals an extra 1d8 and 2d8 damage respectively.

Deadeye - Spend a move action to gain advantage on your next ranged attack with a weapon or thrown object. At 11th level you ignore cover. At 15th level you ignore intervening objects and structures (or whatever language is necessary to let you ricochet shots around corners).

Armiger Defense - Action Requirement: Wearing Heavy Armor or using a Shield - Until your next turn, reduce B/P/S damage by your proficiency bonus plus your strength or constitution modifier (whichever is higher). If this reduces the damage received to zero, you may make a melee attack. You may only make one such attack against any individual each round. At level 11 and 15 the damage reduction increases by 3 and 6 respectively.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them?
No they haven't, and no you can't. :p

Ok, you can obviously if you want to, but I don't even like how simple they made them in 5E.

I prefer individual weapons proficiencies because, let's be honest:

1) nobody knows how to use all weapons
2) most PCs (IME) have 2-4 weapons at most they use regularly.

As for armor, you do train in that as well. How to put it on, get used to its weight and balance, learn to maintain it, and most importantly how it is best used to protect you and just how far that protection extends.

I don't know if individual armor proficiencies would be necessary, but the three groups in 5E are distinct enough without going overboard IMO.
 

I appreciate the attempt to balance the weapons and armours logically. The official ones are a bit of a mess. With armours particularly there are just a lot of utterly pointless choices.

But I don't understand or approve the idea of getting rid of proficiencies. Having proficiencies allows us to have some weapons and armour that are better, the cost just is that you need a proficiency to use them. Also, the armour and weapon proficiencies are in the purview of the martial classes, so just giving their stuff to everyone for free seems really unfair. Martials really don't have too much unique stuff!
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
I have no horse in the race, but I will point out that it would be a great opportunity to finally kill "studded leather armor," which was never a thing. Add in what they thought they were describing under its proper name and give it the appropriate attributes. :p

You can add these to your game if you want:

1654817118737.png


Based on actual historical armors (even if you don't agree with the stats I put with them 🤷‍♂️ )...
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Is it even possible for you to comment on this topic without insulting other people?

Mod Note:
First off, I think you misunderstood. The post seems to be saying that the
designers thought folks playing fighters weren't smart or didn't want complexity.

Second, even if they were
being
insulting, making the discussion about them is unlikely to be helpful.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top