D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Blue]

yes you are right, some weapons seem to be stronger than others, and have more feat based possibilities. But is that a bug or a feature?

It is undeniably a bug. Much like the trident. No PC voluntarily takes the trident - if you only use simple weapons you don't have the proficiency, and if you do it is the inferior option. That option may not as well exist, and players who want to use it are penalized mathematically for doing so over other martial weapons.

Same for different fighting styles. I don't want them to be the same, but if you are going to effectively eliminate some fighting styles from the same level of effectiveness by not providing support for them, players will be mechanically penalized for taking them.

It is indisputably a bug unless you want trap options.

i myself do not like that handcrossbow allows for unrealistic umph damage builds, the ss feat should not be possible with that weapon which shoots better pub darts.
but also i dislike a bit that duel can be combined with shield.
otoh i would say that greatsword and rapier clearly should get reach.
but for simplicity wizards obviously decided to offer only some RL derived options. So you have to houserule things you don't like, I'm afraid.

I'd rather balance by giving them all the same, but in a thread about elimination if my choice is to cut or leave the same I'd rather cut. Not because I dislike the -5/+10, but because other fighting methods have a much lower ceiling in terms of feats I find unfair. As I originally said - I had agreed with -5/+10, but not for the reasons others thought - because in the context of removal only, it's the option that makes sense.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It is undeniably a bug. Much like the trident. No PC voluntarily takes the trident - if you only use simple weapons you don't have the proficiency, and if you do it is the inferior option. That option may not as well exist, and players who want to use it are penalized mathematically for doing so over other martial weapons.

Same for different fighting styles. I don't want them to be the same, but if you are going to effectively eliminate some fighting styles from the same level of effectiveness by not providing support for them, players will be mechanically penalized for taking them.

It is indisputably a bug unless you want trap options.


I'd rather balance by giving them all the same, but in a thread about elimination if my choice is to cut or leave the same I'd rather cut. Not because I dislike the -5/+10, but because other fighting methods have a much lower ceiling in terms of feats I find unfair. As I originally said - I had agreed with -5/+10, but not for the reasons others thought - because in the context of removal only, it's the option that makes sense.

The only trap option is something a player finds unfun. I’ve seen a sea elf abjuration wizard who had a 15 STR and wielded a trident. It was flavorful, fun, & effective - definitely not a “trap option”.

 

[Ixal]

Advantage/disadvantage.
Not granular enough for my taste.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The only trap option is something a player finds unfun. I’ve seen a sea elf abjuration wizard who had a 15 STR and wielded a trident. It was flavorful, fun, & effective - definitely not a “trap option”.

If some players are changing their character because tridents are objectively worse, it's a bad thing. Just because a problem doesn't affect everybody doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Is anyone choosing tridents because they are an inferior option?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If some players are changing their character because tridents are objectively worse, it's a bad thing. Just because a problem doesn't affect everybody doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Is anyone choosing tridents because they are an inferior option?

Who’s changing their character because of ... tridents? Honest question - I don’t understand the angle here. Are we concerned about d6 vs d8 damage? Is that it?

 

[CleverNickName]

Who’s changing their character because of ... tridents? Honest question - I don’t understand the angle here. Are we concerned about d6 vs d8 damage? Is that it?

There is a certain school of thought that suggests if your character isn't The Best at something, that character is Not Good at it. Now by definition, Not Good = Bad, and this line of thinking also holds that Bad is unacceptable.

The trident does d6 damage, which isn't The Best. Some folks find that completely unacceptable.

Meanwhile, my coastal druid is over here like

(credit: @wifihunters via Pinterest)

 

[jmartkdr2]

Who’s changing their character because of ... tridents? Honest question - I don’t understand the angle here. Are we concerned about d6 vs d8 damage? Is that it?

There are absolutely players who decide not to use tridents because it's a weakness with no benefit. So they wanted to play a sea dog warrior with a trident, but find out that will remove a ton of options for them, so they change the look of the character to one who uses a better weapon. And so on.

d6 to d8 is enough to create this result by itself, yes, if there's no tradeoff for it.

 

[CleverNickName]

There are absolutely players who decide not to use tridents because it's a weakness with no benefit. So they wanted to play a sea dog warrior with a trident, but find out that will remove a ton of options for them, so they change the look of the character to one who uses a better weapon. And so on.

d6 to d8 is enough to create this result by itself, yes, if there's no tradeoff for it.

But a trident doesn't "remove a ton of options," in fact it adds two (thrown and versatile). As for the perceived "weakness" of d6 vs d8 damage, you're talking about 1 point of damage, on average. Tempest in a teapot.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But a trident doesn't "remove a ton of options," in fact it adds two (thrown and versatile). As for the perceived "weakness" of d6 vs d8 damage, you're talking about 1 point of damage, on average. Tempest in a teapot.

Okay, so what's the advantage of having a weaker trident? What does a trident do that a spear doesn't?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Okay, so what's the advantage of having a weaker trident? What does a trident do that a spear doesn't?

Impresses the audience.

Retarii didn't fight with net and trident because it was more effective; they fought because it was a great spectacle.