D&D (2024) Weapon and Armor categories and training in them. Do we still need them?

[DND_Reborn]

I'll chime in on the longsword finesse issue:

Our house-rule (and in our Mod) is that any versatile weapon when used with two hands can either:
1. gain the increased damage die size OR
2. gain the finesse property.

Ya can't do both, however.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think this should be a fighter and barbarian class feature.

Power strike: When you take the attack action, you can give up your addition attacks from Extra Atracks to add additional damage dice.


Fighter: Roll your weapon dice 2 times for each extra attack.

Barbarian: Roll 1d12 for each extra attack.

This would be rather worse than having the extra attacks.

ok, counterpoint - rapiers exist. the average weight of a rapier is about 1 kg - the average weight of a longsword is about 1.1-1.8 kg, but we'll settle at the median of 1.5 (well, it's actually 1.45, but i'm choosing to round up, you'll see why in a second). it's estimated that having a second hand on a melee weapon increases your effective strength with that weapon by about 50% (this is why 3e let you add half your strength again to attacks made with a weapon you were wielding with two hands). 50% of 1 kg is 0.5 kg, and 1 kg plus 0.5 kg is...exactly 1.5 kg. coincidentally, this also works almost identically with dnd's weapon table - rapiers are 2 lb, longswords are 3, you can do math. it'd be reasonable then, i'd say, to consider two-handing a longsword (or, at least, the kind of longsword dnd seeks to represent and lighter ones) to be approximately equal to using a rapier in terms of finesse.

or, in other words - yes, two-handing a weapon is meant to give you leverage. for at least longswords, that leverage significantly lessens the need to be strong in order to fight effectively with it. hence, two-handed finesse weapon.

I got the impression that then the designers thought "Rapier", they had the image of a smallsword: the sort of thing that you see used in The Princess Bride or Pirates of the Caribbean rather than the historical rapier. (In the same way that the D&D longsword doesn't completely match up the the historical longsword.) You're perfectly correct in that an actual rapier requires more strength than a longsword.
Finesse has a somewhat . . . fuzzy existence, but I view it as being required to allow characters that fit in with some popular media tropes to be optimised.
My personal determination as to whether I think of a weapon as Finesse is the Bruce/Bilbo test: - Assuming that Bruce Lee and Bilbo Baggins have the same skill, and high dexterity, but Bruce has a strength score almost as high, whereas Bilbo's Str is relatively low. If you would imagine the weapon being more effective in Bruce Lee's hands, then power and athleticism have a role to play in its use, and it is probably not finesse.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I got the impression that then the designers thought "Rapier", they had the image of a smallsword: the sort of thing that you see used in The Princess Bride or Pirates of the Caribbean rather than the historical rapier. (In the same way that the D&D longsword doesn't completely match up the the historical longsword.) You're perfectly correct in that an actual rapier requires more strength than a longsword.

i mean, maybe, but i also have the impression that if you corrected the designers they wouldn't exactly care. at this point, we're really getting into speculation.

Finesse has a somewhat . . . fuzzy existence, but I view it as being required to allow characters that fit in with some popular media tropes to be optimised.
My personal determination as to whether I think of a weapon as Finesse is the Bruce/Bilbo test: - Assuming that Bruce Lee and Bilbo Baggins have the same skill, and high dexterity, but Bruce has a strength score almost as high, whereas Bilbo's Str is relatively low. If you would imagine the weapon being more effective in Bruce Lee's hands, then power and athleticism have a role to play in its use, and it is probably not finesse.

i mean, by that logic the finesse property shouldn't exist, because i'd imagine bruce lee's athleticism makes him better with any melee weapon then bilbo (which, perhaps, lends itself to your assertion that the finesse property is fuzzy). i don't really think we're going to come to an agreement here, which is fine, but it seems to be a distraction for the thread at large.

I'll chime in on the longsword finesse issue:

Our house-rule (and in our Mod) is that any versatile weapon when used with two hands can either:
1. gain the increased damage die size OR
2. gain the finesse property.

Ya can't do both, however.

based...?

 

[DND_Reborn]

based...?

Having two-hands on a weapon allows you better control/precision (allowing for DEX) or more leverage/power (increased damage die).

 

[Minigiant]

This would be rather worse than having the extra attacks.

What about +3W

2 attacks at Weapon dice +Ability Modifier damage.

OR

1 attack at 4*Weapon dice + Ability Modifier damage.

I'm too Saturday to do the math right now.

 

[Reynard]

I don't have an opinion on the mechanics presented in the OP, but I do think the entire subject of the threat underscores the question "What is D&D for?" Is it to tell rollicking adventure stories? Is it to immerse oneself in a fantasy world? Is it to test one's tactical and strategic gameplay skills? Is it to provide a loose framework around which we can bs with our friends over beers and pizza?

Of course it is all of these things to some degree or another, depending on the needs and the desires of the participants. But I think WotC kind of needs to decide what it is, and build it to suit that, because right now it is quite confused. There are "simulation" elements lingering in a system that is mostly built around abstract light gameplay, but then also some relatively granular tactical aspects thrown in.

If they really want a game that does all the things well, they need to deliver the modularity they promised, so one table can play their medieval fantasy simulator while another table plays their Tory generator engine and a third engages in detailed turn based tactics.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. A Tory generator engine. Just so many jokes.

But I do agree with your point. WotC is trying thread a needle and apparently trying to do it in a windstorm while the tread is on fire. No easy task and one I certainly do not envy.

 

[LordEntrails]

Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them?

No & No. Except you can at your table anytime you want and you don't need our permission.

That said, I think this thread (along with the obvious success of 5E) shows that the designers got it right, or close to right. When you stand in the middle, and you have people arguing for more and others for less, then it pretty much means you got in the middle. And if you want a commercial success, aiming for the middle is usually the right choice.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

OK. Back to discussing the OP:

Now, as for armor:

We already have good tool for armor to lose proficiency categories.
Min STR. Just expand on it and make it work for all armor.

Also return variable max dex for all armors. That way, more armors will be a desirable goal, depending on users dexterity.

ARMOR	MIN STR	AC	MAX DEX	PENALTY
padded	8	11	6
leather	10	12	6
studded leather	12	13	5
hide	14	14	4
chainshirt	14	15	3	stealth
chain mail	16	16	2	stealth
half plate	18	17	1	stealth
full plate	20	18	0	stealth
Buckler/light shield	10	+1	5
shield	14	+2	3
heavy shield/tower	18	+3	1	stealth, acrobatics, -5ft speed

If I'm reading this right, there is no longer an AC benefit for going Str-based rather than Dex-based.
This table keeps the max AC through armour at 18, but lets a Dex-based character hit the same AC without needing to invest in Strength or get disadvantage on stealth.

What was the reasoning for this change from the current system?

 

[Horwath]

OK. Back to discussing the OP:

If I'm reading this right, there is no longer an AC benefit for going Str-based rather than Dex-based.
This table keeps the max AC through armour at 18, but lets a Dex-based character hit the same AC without needing to invest in Strength or get disadvantage on stealth.

What was the reasoning for this change from the current system?

Well, the armor table can be worked on to make more balance between STR and DEX, maybe full can be at 18 STR with 19 AC and max dex of 0.
Or raise also min STR form lightest armor to 10.

And the change was, to stop fiddling with armor proficiency categories with classes and subclasses.

Also it punishes dumping STR as you are more limited in armor selection, and with min DEX for all armors it also punishes dumping DEX.