D&D 5E Why are Derro weapons so stupid?

[CapnZapp]

So my honest answer is, derro weapons don't bother me that much.

Your honest answer is perfectly fine. It doesn't bother me in the least. I wish others replied along your lines.

 

[CapnZapp]

Derro weapons make sense; it's the rules that don't. So hang the rules, or rather, change your view of them. Monster attack bonus and damage is tracked more based on CR rather than stat or weapon choice, so let the weapon choice be a cosmetic choice and don't worry too much about whether it fits the "rules" the players play by. Maybe Derro have special training with their racial weapons? Who knows.

Game rules are ever only going to be an imperfect model for the game world you're trying to create, so don't let them constrain fun.

I'm not.

I just wish they were given tools that actually made sense.

I wish I wouldn't be able to trivially replace their trademark weapons for daggers with better results.

 

[CapnZapp]

5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.

It's not a poor design choice to focus less on mechanical design and more on story or feel (well, it is, for a certain sense of 'poor'), it's just a different emphasis.

So, yes, if, as a DM, you find there's a detail missing, fill it in, out of place, move it, sub-optimal, tune it up, broke, fix it. It's part of your job as an Empowered 5e DM.

We all know this. Why do feel a need to sidestep the issue to parrot universal truths back at me?

All of what you're saying doesn't change the fact that a WotC designer saw how stupid the derro weaponry comes across, but couldn't be arsed to tweak away the stupidness.

What's so hard about simply agreeing with original poster without taking up an unpaid position as defender of WotC?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Having an opinion different to your own in terms of the design criteria used in an adventure doesn't automatically make something inferior - just different.
Going with a more thematic concept for the Derro rather than more mathematically rules-optimal is only a poor design choice if mathematical rules-optimisation is the purpose. Since it is evident that you have different preferences to the writer of that part of the adventure, we're just suggesting that you adjust things to better suit the way you, personally like to stat your monsters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We all know this. universal truths.

While it's universally true that a GM can always change any little thing in a published adventure he's running, it's not universal that he's expected to. 5e's design philosophy is to leave a great deal to the DM, including whether his world needs to run on mechanics as de-facto laws of physics, or can tolerate sub-optimal weapon choices without an existential crisis. In another edition, pointing out that 'universal truth' in a similar context would have been an 'Oberoni fallacy.'

 

[Shaghayegh]

In 1E the derro weapons were not suboptimal, now they are. So the weapons were not correctly translated to the new system. That is a design flaw...

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I did some editing to the Derro weapons. They can now force the trip attempt on a hit as a bonus action. And some of them which I labeled Bow Derro have multiattack to take advantage of the repeating crossbow.

 

[n00b f00]

It's okay for characters to fight in a sub optimal way. As long as it's narratively relevant, or it's done to evoke a certain effect whether it's to have weaklings or be silly or what have you.

Now these weapons were annoying and badass before. So either they changed them to be crappy because of the way they wanted to balance those encounters, or they did a poor job of translating it.

It's easy enough to add bonus action trips, and bow multi attacks. I don't think wizards wrote it btw, wasn't there a topic about how mostly third parties like green ronin did the bulk of the writing so I don't think it's a tribal thing going on with defenders.

 

[PnPgamer]

CR 1/4.

Well their equipment reflect that. If you want to make them have more optimized equipment, you should also rise their cr (and thus grant more exp). Goblins are a ½ CR right? Their stuff is more in line with their statistics.

 

[Werebat]

5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.

Ah. "It's not a bug -- it's a feature!"

One thing being forgotten here is the fact that as written, any encounter with derro hands the party a number of repeating crossbows that, while not at all optimized for the derro, ARE very optimized for many PCs. As in, "Repeating light crossbows? Yes please!" from every munchkin with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. The (powergamer) rogue in my campaign practically salivated when I described the derro's repeating crossbows. He picked up three of them (just in case the first two break).

This is a totally different issue than CR (although those mentioning CR probably have a fair point against giving the derro Multiattack IMO). I'm not sure it could be described as good design on the part of whoever translated the Derro to 5th Edition.

I'm inclined to retroactively give them normal light crossbows and short swords. OR let them use their short spears as finesse weapons (they already do 1d4 damage).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah. "It's not a bug -- it's a feature!"

Yep

I'm inclined to retroactively give them normal light crossbows and short swords. OR let them use their short spears as finesse weapons (they already do 1d4 damage).

See, you just used the feature. ;P

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well their equipment reflect that. If you want to make them have more optimized equipment, you should also rise their cr (and thus grant more exp). Goblins are a ½ CR right? Their stuff is more in line with their statistics.

Goblins are CR 1/4 in 5E.

 

[Shasarak]

5e really is designed with the idea that you'll change what you don't like or fill in what's missing, though.

It's not a poor design choice to focus less on mechanical design and more on story or feel (well, it is, for a certain sense of 'poor'), it's just a different emphasis.

So, yes, if, as a DM, you find there's a detail missing, fill it in, out of place, move it, sub-optimal, tune it up, broke, fix it. It's part of your job as an Empowered 5e DM.

Is there not a certain design philosophy that terrible rules make for better roleplaying?

 

[PnPgamer]

Goblins are CR 1/4 in 5E.

well then the derro designers were either drunk, on drugs or derro.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is there not a certain design philosophy that terrible rules make for better roleplaying?

There is. And, while it may seem like it's a short leap from 5e's design philosophy to that one, it is a leap. 5e is designed with the assumption that different DMs will want different things out of the game and use it differently. That's not quite the same thing as intentionally designing a system so bad that players & GMs will just try to avoid it as much as possible, pushing them into 'better' freestyle RP.