>sword and shield completely and utterly outclassed by polearms and the fricking hand crossbow
WHY does 5e hate sword and board so much?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>sword and shield completely and utterly outclassed by polearms and the fricking hand crossbow
newbie, sword and board has been the inferior choice since 3.0.
Polearm also dominated 4e making Fighter almost better at crowd control than Wizard and in 3.x 2 pts of AC was inferior to the sheer damage output of greatsword. Especially with Cleave.
It's a pretty omnipresent issue for D&D because Armor Class is a rather poor source of value, as enough to actually compete with the two-handed advantages in math terms is going to add multiple rounds to the fight and make you SO hard a target that it's just not worth TRYING to hit you.
They're easy to get to work in vidya where you're either alone or have hard threat mechanics making it mandatory for enemies to hit you, whereas in tabletop the standards for verisimilitude dictate soft threat like 4e's Marks or interdiction like the Counters from Devoted Spirit back in 3.5 which... Just aren't a thing in 5e, because the mechanics got crushed too flat to fit such things.
Worse, the Animated quality makes it so that in actuality it's trading all the damage value of a two-handed weapon for at most 36k GP. Though the relative value is much better in 3.0 as the two-handed Power Attack advantage was only introduced in 3.5, I'm pretty sure there also wasn't the support for TWF with Shield Bashes.
Shut the frick up about the Martial/Caster divide, the point is comparison to polearms and hand crossbow. Not every problem of inter-build balance in D&D is from the dogshit handling of design-by-landfill magic.
>hurr durr the problem isn't about this specific thing so ur wrong
You can cry about D&D some more, or you can move on to something better; whether you find it searching for fantasy RPGs on Google, or make it yourself.
The point is that you're posting quite aggressively contrary to the topic of this particular thread, because it's a DIFFERENT problem of D&D. Laying every problem at the feat of gutting all restraints on the casters is simply inaccurate, some of them come from things like the switch to Attacks of Opportunity instead of default movement restrictions or the skill system being terribly anemic in output for how much it drags out of improvisation.
Okay, so continue to cry about D&D some more, instead of searching for a better game or making one.
...Do you think that somebody replying to a thread has to actually play the specific game they are commenting on? I'm still in the 3.X madhouse crowbarring nonsensical jank together and not hesitating to write up feats, items, and PRCs to weld where things do not meet as desired, because my autism comes with a little bit too much ADHD for the raw point-buy clusterfricks.
Just drop "have you tried not playing D&D" or the current /5eg/ and move on, instead of insisting on a completely unrelated complaint about the system.
>Do you think that somebody replying to a thread has to actually play the specific game they are commenting on?
I think it's ridiculous to make a thread to complain about something that's so easy to avoid, hence my first post.
Yes, very easy to avoid, unlike your moronic opinion that you vomit into every thread you find. Have you tried NOT being a homosexual? It's like not playing D&D, except that it improves an entire board.
I mean an animated shield is still a sort of sword and board, just a really big sword and a board that moves on its own.
>newbie, sword and board has been the inferior choice since 3.0.
More like since 2e.
>3aboo calling anyone a 'newbie.'
Ivory tower game design legacy. It's a shit choice on purpose because WotC is a CCG company and brought CCG design language to RPGs.
I am curious: how would you improve sword and board for DnD? Off the top of my head I can imagine things like shields being able to reduce damage of certain dexterity save attacks (like a dragon’s breath weapon, shitload of arrows/darts) and really that’s it without going into stuff that would be more battle master maneuvers for specific weapons like shield strikes or flipping opponents over you.
You could go pretty well with Sword & Board in 3.x
If you allowed Tome of Battle for the Crusader to make use of the Shield-centric Devoted Spirit Maneuvers.
Because it isn't magic.
You can cry about D&D some more, or you can move on to something better; whether you find it searching for fantasy RPGs on Google, or make it yourself.
DnD has been shit since 3rd edition, and 5e is a "lifestyle brand". WotC gives zero shots about game balance as long as they can keep pushing product on moronic normies who treat the game like improve theater anyway.
Also this. It's 2020+, there are literally hundreds of better games to be playing than DnDogshit.
Give us some system suggestions
Don't fall for this bait. He's gonna get dozens of suggestions, pick ONE that he doesn't like, and then proceed to use that to dismiss the entire list while deepthroating D&D.
If he's actually curious, he'll put in the basic legwork doing some research of his own.
What kind of system do you want to experience?
Even knowing
is right, I'll spoon feed you anyway. Here is the beginner pack:
Legend of the Five Rings
Riddle of Steel
Ars Magica
Dungeon World
Star Wars FFG
Pendragon
Mouseguard
RISUS
Shadow of the Demon Lord
Ryuutama
Mutants and Masterminds
GURPS
ah yes, star wars. my favorite setting for playing a sword and shield wielding medieval knight
Yes, God forbid your miserable one-game ass try something new.
Also, DnD 5e is also a pretty shit system for playing a knight too, so it's not like you're any worse off for trying.
It's a copy-pasta, dumbass.
Still a list of games that are all legitimately better than modern DnDogshit though.
>Shadow of the Demon Lord
>Pendragon
Aren't these both D&D-likes? The former being a hybrid of 4th and 5th edition with a scat fetish, and the latter being a legitimate improvement on old-school D&D play?
>GURPS
I wish getting into this system were easier. The full basic rulebook makes it feel overwhelming to GM with no prior play experience, and there aren't any groups that I know who actually run it.
If SJ started making "starter books" with lists of suggested skills and settings, I think it would be a lot better.
>Proving
If he's actually curious, he'll put in the basic legwork doing some research of his own.'s entire point in one post
Thanks for playing
I didn't dismiss the entire list or deepthroat dnd, god forbid I point out that STAR WARS is not a good replacement for someone lamenting the lack of enjoyable sword and board in their rpg
Whenever I've spoken to the D&D hate crowd they don't know much about the games in any detail. Just ignore them, they're just doing it for attention because when they try to talk about other games they get shouted down for being morons.
>sotdl
It’s a less awful 5e made specifically to shut up people who won’t stop playing 5e but don’t like 5e anymore.
>pendragon
No. I can’t really say what it is but it isn’t that.
>less awful
It's shit.
Star Wars FFG has been basically replaced by Genesys anyway, which is a system for running any genre of game.
/thread.
This should really be the standard for any 5e thread.
>why does-
Don’t play 5e
>well why don’t you recommend
Use google or lurk
>see you can’t even name one-
Fine, keep playing garbage.
That is the only response merited.
The overcompensation of the self-absorbed speargay isn't D&D-specific. You would know this if you actually payed games.
Disregarded out of hand for ideology.
Sword and Board has never been optimal. Two handed weapons and ranged weapons have always been better... in like EVERY edition of D&D.
Pathfinder 2e makes shields good, but tgat woukd involve you trying something besides D&D.
>tgat woukd involve you trying something besides D&D.
You can't simultaneously hytnpdnd whilst recommending Pathfinder. Pathfinder IS D&D.
This is absolutely false in 5e. Because of bounded accuracy, there are very few sources for attack and defense bonuses, leading to a +2 often cutting incoming damage by 20-50% against most enemies.
However, as
pointed out, it's still a poor choice, not because it doesn't work but because enemies don't have to target you.
You have a general, off with you
Back from your ban huh
Shield Master, P170, Player's Handbook:
-If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to Shove (reminder that the Shove action can be used to knock a creature Prone) a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
-If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
-If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.
>but muh damage
Then don't pick a defensive option homosexual
Still a worse defensive setup than Polearm Master + Sentinel.
Only if you're dealing with medium sized humanoids that don't have ranged attacks. Sentinel can't save you from a dragon's breath weapon.
Shield Master also can't save you from a dragon's breath weapon
It gives you Evasion, how does that not count?
No it gives you a half ass evasion.
Shield master lets you take no damage if you both make the dex save, and have a reaction to use. Most people using shields are gonna ahve shit dex saves as well.
>can't use the second part against fireball because aoes don't target you specifically
it's so close to not being shit but they had to frick it up
You can still use the 3rd part though. 2nd part is for swatting aside a Disintegrate
That eating your reaction is actually a huge opportunity cost. When it could be spent on absorb elements or shield.
>That eating your reaction is actually a huge opportunity cost. When it could be spent on absorb elements or shield.
Not really.
You only use your reaction if you pass the save. So you could still absorb elements on a fail.
And shield won't help you if you get hit with a high damage dex save effect.
>fireball
fireball engulfs an area in flames, having a shield will not help as it is not directional. It is like suddenly you are immersed in water but its fire. If it was a lance of fire and you could anticipate it then you could use your shield for protection and if it was not too powerful as to burn it outright or melt it or dragonbreath you would live.
Shield master is fun and effective, just athletics max and bully enemies.
If your DM is nice, they'll even let you shove before you attack and then it becomes a great offensive option too.
But mostly it's just fun to bully things.
>sword and shield completely and utterly outclassed by polearms and the fricking arquebus
Why does real life hate sword and board so much?
In fairness to shields it was need for polearms to counter cavalry that did them in, not the polearms themselves.
I remember it being the development in armor technology that made shields less useful.
Even in early pike and shot warfare part of military formations would be made up of men with hand weapons and shields. In fact Tercio means 3 or third a reference to the 3 components of the formation. It was the growing dominance of infantry firepower that led to first the men with shorter weapons to be replaced with more arquebus armed soldiers and then the amount of pikes to be gradually reduced.
Look up the rodeleros, shields+swords were still useful in the pike and shot era
Only during the early 16th century. They fell off by the 17th.
Shields just kind of suck in DnD, all they do is provide a tiny bonus to AC which you can get by a bunch of other methods. Feats, class abilities, magic items, etc can all make up for the AC difference and make your use of shield irrelevant. Which leaves just your weapon damage, and you have to be doing some kind of build optimization for melee weapons to ever not be a joke as you level up. At level 1 a 1d8+3 longsword is a deadly threat. At level 8, 1d8+3 is only a problem if you let it keep happening without dealing with it. Level 15 and above, you can take 1d8+3 damage every round while holding a casual conversation and not even have to dignify it with a response. But you, as a fighter, have surprisingly few options to actually scale up that damage as you level beyond 'hit them more times'.
>sword and shield completely and utterly outclassed by polearms
so like real life?
A spear is better in a large formation sure but a sword and shield is better for a wandering adventurer. It can handle a much larger range of situations and weapons than a spear.
Shields are ass for a wandering adventurer. That's a lot of weight to lug. Best weapon is a heavy one handed sword that you can two hand when needed
Just have said adventurer carry around a buckler or something more portable for every day carry, and then a bigger shield for when entering an actual dungeon.
>Shields are ass for a wandering adventurer. That's a lot of weight to lug. Best weapon is a heavy one handed sword that you can two hand when needed
They are a must and almost no warrior would be caught without one. We are not talking only about human opponents and some animals.
You are in worlds in which there are monsters all over the place that have all sorts of attacks and types of movement and characteristics that you cannot anticipate. Maybe sometimes the character would want to keep something away and sacrifice the shield and not just defend or bash. A slime or or some other fricker.
Can't do that with just a weapon. And you would not want to sacrifice your main weapon for that.
You also needs shields to cover you if you are using a crossbow, a real one not this hand-crossbow gimmicks of 5e, and shields can be used for many things.
Shields are a lot better than wearing full suits of armor when it comes to marching around.
And most soldiers will carry ~70lbs of gear, regardless of the time period.
>Swashbucklers? No never heard about those
Imagine being this fricking moronic
No. Otherwise the Romans wouldn't have conquered most of Europe with their primarily sword/shield armed troops against primarily polearm wielding enemies.
>Enemy tries to jab you with spear
>You deflect with shield
>You get up close and stab them in the ribs with your maneuvrable 1h sword, at a range where spears are too long and unwieldy to be useful
>primarily sword/shield armed troops against primarily polearm wielding enemies
pilums (that special javelin) and lots of peltasts (darts, Plumbata) and peltast-like troop tactics were used along with sword and shield and lots a of flexibility past a point. So they had medium ranged combat covered, not masses of bowmen for long range let us say, and very close combat covered and that was very effective.
The Romans had some trouble with the dacian falx sword that was like a "sickle two-handed sword", it large version at least. To the degree they added extra armor to their men and of course the sword and shield won. This falx seems like a hybrid sword-polearm.
"large gaping wounds that a falx inflicted, and experiments have shown that a blow from a falx easily penetrated the Romans' lorica segmentata, enough to incapacitate or kill a majority of opponents"
Sword and shield is the best overall for fantasy heroics. Get close and kill it.
Romans weren't exactly spear-free, heck they used literal field artillery during some periods.
>Alexander the Great conquered the known solely on the power of the revolutionary idea to make the spear 4 meters long
>the Romans control all of the Mediterranean for a thousand years because their legionaries use spears
>Dschingis Khan buttfricks everyone from the Pacific to the Atlantic, shitting on every army he comes across because his archers can shoot from horseback
Range is more important than damage potential, defense, endurance or whatever.
The eternal truth is: Spear is glorious master race. Sword is la creatura.
>Romans
>Spears
Lmao
Actually no, pre Marian Reform Romans used spears across most formations in the maniple, and later Romans adopted the spear again. Even the Marian Romans used reinforced pila as spears.
Shields start to vanish in the late 14th century and are gone by the mid 15th. People forget that a shield is literally just a board attached to your arm that is relatively cumbersome and prevents the use of that arm for more useful things, like better weapon control or the use of bigger weapons.
Polearms become more common as both a defence against cavalry and as a way to injure or incapacitate men in heavy armour.
It does see a revival in the early renaissance on specialised soldiers whose job it was to go in under the pikes and kill enemy pikemen to disrupt their formation, but dies away again as the emphasis shifts to mass pike and firepower.
>in the maniple, and later Romans adopted the spear again
Because of the Crisis of the Third Century. They stopped being able to afford to forge swords (which require more effort and metal than spears) as standard issue for troops. It's the same reason why lorica segmentata stopped being used; too expensive for mass production across 100,000s of troops, despite being a superior option to lorica hamata.
Swords were always used when available and affordable, from the end of the Roman Empire to the early, high and late middle ages and beyond; and that's because they were a better option for close quarters combat than any polearm.
>Shields start to vanish in the late 14th century and are gone by the mid 15th.
Wrong. They were still common in the 1300s, they were still used in the 1400s for some vanguard troops and especially for sieges. They never really went out of usage, especially because not everyone could afford full plate.
I generally count pavises as their own thing anon, they are more akin to portable walls than a shield.
As for the Romans, whilst it is true that the drop-off in metal production hurt them, the move to spears was also in part to the effectiveness of the spear, especially in massed formations.
Hand pavises were a thing, which were used in combat throughout the 1400s, especially through Eastern Europe. Then you had shields that were not even pavises at all, for selected frontline troops.
See the inventories of John Fastolf which container numerous contemporary shields, and the illustrations of the Code of Wallerstein where men fight in full plate with shield. Or the Book of Hours.
The Black Army of Hungary also used large amounts of shields in the frontline. More info http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.20241.html
Largely correct, but
>prevents the use of that arm for more useful things, like better weapon control or the use of bigger weapons.
*for some shields. Bucklers were a thing.
Also people liked their hooded lanterns or cloaks in the off-hand. Just like these shields are considered defensive weapons. Wielding shields "is" dual-wielding.
Technically, in a featless game sword and board is noticeably better than polearms or other heavy weapons as the marginal increase in damage die is heavily outweighed by the AC increase. Additionally, the list of magic weapons in the DMG greatly favours the 1H/Versatile list.
The main issue is that the feat selection for Shields and 1H sucks. Shield Master is clunky and doesn't offer anywhere near enough utility or damage to match what Heavy weapons get (Polearms or otherwise). Fix the feats and you'll see more people take them.
>Shields start to vanish in the late 14th century and are gone by the mid 15th.
They were still in heavy use into the early 16th century, mostly phasing out over that century but still in use in some areas, notably in the Scottish Highlands. And that's in a military capacity. In terms of civilian life (which is closer to what an adventurer would probably have) they were in use for longer. Either way we've moved beyond the general time Medieval Fantasy is based in.
>Alexander the Great conquered the known solely on the power of the revolutionary idea to make the spear 4 meters long
That only BTFO'd the Greeks. The Persians got cucked because Alexander led his troops from the front line, pioneered heavy cavalry tactics, and terrified Darius III.
>the Romans control all of the Mediterranean for a thousand years because their legionaries use spears
They used short thrusting swords, and pila were horrible melee weapons.
The correct answer is long spears in formation combined with shortswords as a backup weapon. You can't use a spear in every situation, but the situations where a spear IS usable its generally the superior option.
Really, thinking about it, the fact that DnD fights have to autistically superfocus on a single gimmick build to be effective instead of treating different weapons the same way that a wizard treats schools of magic is a failure of the game. The fighter should be the guy with a fricking golf bag of different weapons on his back, which different actions and moves that are available depending on what he is using for the attack. Hammers for knocking enemies around the field like ping pong balls, spears for stopping enemies from charging past you, swords for close quarters combat, etc.
The problem with weapon swapping in D&D is that you too often have to use an action to swap, and one action is too penalizing.
When WotC tried to address that in the new 5e rules, people got mad about the "golf bag" fighters (though the real problem was that it was highly exploitable).
>instead of treating different weapons the same way that a wizard treats schools of magic is a failure of the game.
This.
And it's easy to implement, too. Just give every class that's proficient with *all* weapons *some* of the benefits of the Piercer feat (or whatever it was called) and the other feats of that type. Boom. Done.
Fighting men are now really better at using weapons than Bards, Cleric's, etc. who in turn still have the option to pick up Piercer to get that benefit. A fighting man can pick Piercer, too, if they want *all* of the benefits of that feat.
Also related: How moronic is it that monsters are either resisting all non-magical weapon attacks or none? Would it be really so complicated for the DM to have skeletons which resist only piercing damage? Or which are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage?
What if weapons had levelled profiles you unlocked as you get more proficient with it?
Like it has a certain profile when you are untrained, but get another as you get more skilled. Gaining new properties, losing drawbacks or even getting a bigger damage dice.
Some weapons may have no untrained profile because they are pretty much unusable without training.
This is an excellent idea trapped in a tragically 5e thread, which would be fabulous to employ in a better edition like 3.5. Perhaps new "status" effect equivalents related to damage type and handedness? A one-handed hammer automatically dazing every time it cries, two-handed hammers forcing a bullrush attempt when they connect, one-handed swords being light and easy enough to use that they ignore the to-hit penalty of tower shields...
God dammit. Crits, not cries. I am being punished for the sin of phone posting.
> The fighter should be the guy with a fricking golf bag of different weapons on his back, which different actions and moves that are available depending on what he is using for the attack.
pathfinder 2e literally redesigned fighter and the entire way weapons work in order to enable this
instead of having to pick a weapon type to be not horrible at you are mathmatically the best at every single weapon type and instead you get to pick a category that does something cool on a crit (that you can change easily) and you pick feats that require you to have weapons from one extremely broad category or another (that you can change easily and eventually get a perk to literally one pick from a list every morning) in order to do cool things. every weapon on top of being a dice you roll has a bunch of perks that change how you use it (one weapon gets bonus rolls for hitting multiple different enemies in one round, another does the exact opposite, that kinda thing) and all magic weapon bonuses are tied to Runes that you can literally grab from one weapon and throw it onto another so you aren't forced to change your entire build because the random loot table gave you a +5 sword but you are the master of the +4 spiked chain
Khan buttfricks everyone from the Pacific to the Atlantic, shitting on every army he comes across because his archers can shoot from horseback
Horse archery was absolutely nothing new. In fact it was even the main method of combat for most of the opponents the Mongols fought. The Chinese used it, the Kharawezmians used it, the Rus' and Polish and Hungarians even used it a bit. Horse archery-centric armies spent hundreds of years jobbing to more conventional armies. Rome invaded Parthia and sacked their capital like six times.
Shooting from horseback was not a tactical superweapon, it was easily defeated by any one of the following: good armour, big shields, stone castles, and massed infantry crossbowmen/archers. Once these tactics were actually known and used (see Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary) the Mongols suffered enormous casualties and retreated from Europe.
The main reasons the Mongols got as far as they did?
1 - their logistics was great, being able to get food from their own horses
2 - everyone being mounted allowed them to surprise the enemy and move quicker than expected
3 - this is the most important one: all their major enemies were caught at a time where they were fricking weak or incompetent. The Song Chinese were more afraid of generals doing an internal coup than they were of the Mongols. The Kharawezmians had just recently conquered their territory in a brutal war, used up their troops and their new subjects didn't care to fight for them. The Kievan Rus' were abandoned by their allies at the first major battle, and the remaining boyars didn't help each other and were conquered one by one.
As soon as the Mongols encountered competent opponents, they fizzled out.
Also, 1/3 of Mongol armies were heavy cavalry, because archers alone can't take down armoured enemies.
>3 - this is the most important one: all their major enemies were caught at a time where they were fricking weak or incompetent. The Song Chinese were more afraid of generals doing an internal coup than they were of the Mongols. The Kharawezmians had just recently conquered their territory in a brutal war, used up their troops and their new subjects didn't care to fight for them. The Kievan Rus' were abandoned by their allies at the first major battle, and the remaining boyars didn't help each other and were conquered one by one.
>As soon as the Mongols encountered competent opponents, they fizzled out.
Why lie? Kharawezm had REGULAR (aka without even rallying militia and vassals) army around 500k soldiers (Mongols invade with 200-250k prox)
Russians weren't abbandonned by their allies, they used all their standart battletactics which they were using against kipchaks, byzantines, madyars, poles and balts. On Kalka they deployed around 100k army along with their kipchak allies against 20k scouting korps. At battles of Mohi and Legnitz they faced with united armies of all Central Europe including HRE knighthood
>As soon as the Mongols encountered competent opponents, they fizzled out.
Mongolian invasion was only successefully repelled by force only by mamlukes, japs and Vietnam (although last two were rather Juan dynasty, rather than mongols)
>Range is more important than damage potential, defense, endurance or whatever.
I know people aren't aware of this, but the ranges horse archers shoot from are short. Hitting stuff from a horse that randomly breaths and twiches is challenging, even if the horse is standing at rest, and hitting things with bow and arrows is even more challenging, so effective combat ranges for mounted archers on the move performing a pass probably start at fifteen to ten meters, with decent certainty being achieved at no more than five meters.
You'd literally get off your horse for proper long-range archery.
Pendragon is a knightgay game and makes sword and shield by far the superior choice for any PC unless you have a racial bonus for some other weapon. Go play it.
But Pendragon is not D&D, therefore nobody will play it. The only acceptable solution is to improve sword and board *inside D&D*, because that is the only game anyone actually gets to play
Because sword and board represent classic fantasy which D&D hates.
>WHY does 5e hate sword and board so much?
>Because sword and board represent classic fantasy which D&D hates.
this guy answered it
Because you aren't getting loot and your GM is a fricking moron. Hand crossbows should be fricking irrelevant by level 10, unless you have good ones. And yes, polearms do have better "damage output", but if you are getting magical items AT THE RATE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO, it should even everyone out. Modern GMs absolutely do not understand how 5e functions, or how it's balanced, and will literally make players suffer 8 levels with the base fricking equipment list, then b***h when their players complain about "not doing enough". Ever wonder why Battlemaster fighter sucks so much dick because the DC for their special moves is abyssmally easy to pass? It's because having 20 in your main stat SHOULD BE ATTAINABLE. I'm fricking sick and tired of moron GMs capping stats with "standard arrays" and "narratively relevant magical items", thereby kneecapping players instead of just playing the game as intended.
No wonder the average "campaign" never makes it to level 20.
>Hand crossbows should be fricking irrelevant by level 10, unless you have good ones
They're always relevant for rogues
>Modern GMs absolutely do not understand how 5e functions
Kek, that's the fricking truth. I had a game yesterday where the 'boss fight' was 7 level 5 players against a CR3 hag, then one of the players got tilted like a gay b***h and left because the DM cheated then invoked rule 0. He should have just put 15 minions on the table but they just don't get it.
That's horrendous, CR ain't the gospel, but it's there for a reason. If you're going to just handwave crap away, you could at the very least make the hag summon in more goons to kill.
>Missing the entire point by a mile
On a level playing field? Yes. But it shouldn't be level at all. You should be encouraged to use the +3 longbow you picked up from a goblin, instead of using the same exact weapon for nine sessions of gameplay, compensating damage falloff, by pouring more and more feats to offset it. As the anon above mentioned, some classes benefit from only using certain weapons, but it's not an objective truth if you're actually well equipped.
Think of it in terms of a video game, have you ever played a run of diablo or any other dungeon crawler where you used fricking grey and white items for the ENTIRETY of your playthrough? No, because it's moronic. Tabletop has zero limitations or restrictions, it's all in your mind, there should be no reason the greatest thing your character aspires towards is a goddamn basic ass greatsword except when you are first started your campaign.
>ou should be encouraged to use the +3 longbow
Why wouldn't you use a +3 hand crossbow instead of a +3 longbow?
Or is the point "the gm should punish you for using certain weapons by never letting you find a magical version of your preferred weapon"?
That's fine, but I'd rather the GM told me in advance "hand crossbow is OP, don't use it" rather than wasting my level 1 feat and level 4 feat and only then learning that I'm not supposed to be using them.
also yes, I play variant humans, every single time.
>Hand crossbows should be fricking irrelevant by level 10
With feats, aren't they objectively better than any other ranged weapon?
I would expect that his point is that if you go by the standard random magic item tables and the suggestions the DMG uses for giving them out, then by level 10 the players are going to have plenty of special magic swords, while the DM would have to specifically choose to have a +1 weapon be a hand crossbow.
There is a distinct bias towards which weapon groups are 'supported', in that sense. There's lots of magic longswords out there, on top of things like gauntlets of ogre power or the various giant strength belts, which when taken together should result in sword & board Fighters doing pretty well for themselves.
If you cater to the players more directly and have their magic items match their build, or even worse don't hand out magic items at all, that goes out the window though.
It's also the case where even if that was the design intent, it's not really spelled out anywhere that the rate of magical swords on the item tables is intended as a balancing feature against stronger specialization feats.
>Modern GMs absolutely do not understand how 5e functions
It's really not their fault, the official DM tools, guides, advice from WotC are absolutely shit, they range from not properly explaining the game to you to just straight up lying.
5e is so piss poor for DMs.
It was kind of like that in real life, to be honest. It's partly why as armor improved, shields became less prevalent. They were still obviously used, but it was usually a better idea to take on a bigger, heavier weapon that could penetrate armor better or keep people at a distance.
The thread pic has more value than the entirety of this discussion filled with people who either don't know history or play anything other than. Also the person who claimed Pendragon is a DND-like is giant fricking moron.
you lost?
D&D threads can be made outside the general. Go frick yourself.
Who the frick cares what 5e does? 5e is a dogshit system with a worse player base. Get some self respect and play something better.
Are you forgetting about the shield mastery feat? Evasion on any class and pushing back as BA is nothing to scoff at
Play D&D 4e, PF 2e, Strike!, 13th Age, SotDL, or DCC.
All are just D&D but better.
First step of subverting the traditional view of fantasy and historical heros
Because the D20 system that D&D runs on is shit. Just port all the locations and lore to GURPS boom problem solved.
BECAUSE IT'S D&D 5E, YOU STOCKHOLME SYNDROMIC TROGLODYTE!
It is not a very good system. It's as balanced as the Elephant Man on Quaaludes. There's so many threads complaining about every shitty detail of that hastily produced, poorly written, corporate sludge, but you fricking normie filth, you redditor scum, Critical Role fanbois, you keep on playing it!
You have the choice to pick up a different system and try that! Something more martial focussed. Something GOOD! But you wont.
"Because Anon!" You tell me, you fricking handpuppet, you brainless simulacrum, "Anon! I can't play a DIFFERENT game! I'd have to learn a whole new set of rules!"
YOU LEARNED HOW TO PLAY 5E, DIDN'T YOU!?! DO THE SAME THING YOU DID BEFORE, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT FRICKING GAME!
*HAVE*YOU*TRIED*NOT*PLAYING*D&D*?*?*?*?*
It’s very satisfying to see our worst troll having such a mental breakdown.
I’ve played an enormous number of different games and “balance” is an illusion in all of them. 4e got the closest but at a cost. 5e is as good as any other fantasy rpg for dungeon crawl adventure games. It’s just popular so contrarians like you have made your whole personality about hating it. Then when I’ve tried engaging with you homosexuals your actual game knowledge of other systems is mediocre at best.
>I’ve played an enormous number of different games and “balance” is an illusion in all of them.
This says more about you than it does about the games you played, if you even did.
Name one game where all the options were balanced and unique.
Don't need to.
Wrong.
Pathetic and typical. When you ask them about actual mechanics or test their knowledge they always come up short.
I'm sure that's what you believe is happening, but I'm not engaging with your dumb strawman argument.
>strawman
You were asked a direct question about balance and chose instead to dodge it because you lack knowledge of games. That's not a strawman, that's literally you.
You asked a dumbass question. It got the answer it deserved. You can deal with it.
The only way to have "balance" is to be all playing the exact same character.
For the people talking about enemies not hitting you, that issue is easily resolved by talking to your DM. Explain that chose to play a shield character because you wanted to stand in front and protect the team, but that either by enemy targeting or the layout of the map that you can't usually do so. If you have a good DM they will either let you respec your character or adjust fights to give you more opportunities to play your ideal character.
Sword and board works for, say, Paladins that can deal damage tons of damage with their smites while still holding a shield for the AC.
Then you get defense fighting style and every other AC increment and become fricking immortal thanks to your aura and buffs.
Also, Clerics that might as well hold a shield while casting spells and shit.
It is kind of shit that there's no support for shield bashing, or things like Animated shields so that you can have your cake and eat it too.
My 3.5e Cleric walks around holding a longsword in two hands with a shield floating by his arm, the fantasy and the reactions the character get in the game are really cool.
All in all, shields are such cool aesthetic.
Have you tried playing real D&D?
Protip:4E and 5E aren't real D&D.
Frick off 3aboo
If you want weapons to be distinct play a simulationist game like Mythras that cares about weapon sizes, ranges, and hit locations. Shields are great.
It doesn't it's just the average DM runs a campaign in a style where defense could be considered a dump stat. Since they will typically hold their punches and not kill their player's characters unless they've royally screwed up, so the players adapting to a meta where their durability is effectively unchallenged will only focus on their offensive potential. It's like how in say modern monster hunter the only thing people care for is how fast they can kill the monster bulk and survivability has gone out the window as a concern since the monsters are so easy to bully with stun mechanics defense doesn't matter. For AC, HP and Saves to really matter in 5th edition you need to play with a simulationist DM who won't hold their punches and has npc actually try and kill you.
I can agree with this. All my players have invested in high AC because I’ve killed 5 characters so far. Nearly killed a 6th last session. They went down to two failed death saving throws from damage before getting healed.
More damage means the monster dies quicker. If that means it has less turns, then that's less opportunities to bypass your defence. The hit bonuses of monsters scales harder than your ability to stack ac, and no amount of AC will save you from crits. Additionally, monsters have a fair few ways of targeting you that completely bypasses AC. In 5e you can turn a polearm or greatsword/axe into a murder machine with the right feats and a dead monster has no attacks. Shields have no comparable options to really boost your defence to the point is balanced versus shaving entire turns off a monster.
Man, I love guys like you who confidently boast AC is a garbage stat you can't actually pump in a way to make it relevant. Since it shows you're just a parrot who has never actually seen a defensively minded character. Shields aren't meant to be the end all be all of defensive options just a single tool in getting your AC to a number where its oppressively strong. It's easier to hit a mid 20s AC than it is to hit a passable hit rate while great weapon fighting.
Just the 5e haters showing for the millionth time that they don’t know anything about 5e or any other ttrpg
turtling is not recommended but you are not turtling you are defending and attacking at the same time.
Reckless or unprotected attack tactics work only when there is complete knowledge of the capacity of the enemy and if all party members can coordinate and use their full might at the same time. And even that may not work. Dice, miscalculation, egotistic antics of party members and so on.
If you don't kill it right away or very fast then you will lose one or more party members. Even if you kill it later it has kind of won since it has killed some of you.
Also you are left exposed to greater danger, since injury will be more likely, for later fights if you cannot recover.
Yes, in the lame mechanics of some games, or of some versions, full attack and ignoring your defense can work. But this is very bad because the game also makes the monster, the enemy not much of a threat (we will rush it and it will die, click-click-click and it dies like a computer game) and many essential items less important or not at all. It becomes just another form of spamming. Its less cinematic. The monster could not do anything we just killed it. Did not see dragonbreath or beholder ray attacks or something like that.
that is like hacking the game, and thus losing a large part of it for the sake of "winning" for the end titles.
This. I'm in a 5e campaign where enemies have +10 to hit, minimum.
A 17+ AC is mandatory if you want to avoid even a couple of hits.
Kinda related
Back before tasha, when you didn't get "just add +2 and +1 wherever you want!" I tried to play nightcrawler (Kurt Wagner) as a shadow monk tiefling and also an aasimar sun soul. Sadly they started with 14-15 AC, it was a death sentence everytime to the point the GM forbade me to play them
Yet everytime I mention it in the 5eg then say stuff like "AC 15 is above average for martials you're lying", I was even playing modules not homebrewed games in where my GM used stronger enemies, I was playing on games intended by the devs, I don't understand
Opposite, my dm runs monsters with massive attack bonuses over 14, most attacks are a yes, so we focus on burst damage and no save allowed battlefield control like walls to divide and kill the enemies.
Well then you certainly are an outlier if you're regularly fighting monsters with to Hit Mods better than the average ancient Dragon without any functional defensive equipment, though considering you're probably in tier 3 or 4, it shouldn't be that hard to have a build that can still face a 15+ modifier and avoid them more often than not.
>Well then you certainly are an outlier
Huge majority of GMs and games are shit and also boring, I agree. It doesn't even apply just to 5e.
Nta, I'm DMing instead and in my current campaign the recent examples include +10 to hit enemies at level 8, and +12 to hit at level 10. Also a +14 to hit boss at level 8 but it was a gimmick fight with means of literally perma-stunning the boss.
Needless to say, the players love shields and were euphoric when they last found a Shield +1.
A sword is a weapon optimized for killing humans and humanoid. Polearms are the superior choice Vs monsters such as horses.
>monsters such as horses
do.... do you know something we dont anon?
Nta, but horses are soulless
t. Grew up on on a stable
I understand that they glitch out and KYS frequently whenever they aren't kept on literal endless, flat planes.
On the other hand, with sufficient repetition, they will do any job that is walking between any number of points unerringly and at any speed required. Until ghosts cross said route.
no no he's correct, never trust a horse.
Losing one point of damage output on average is a good trade-off if you can bring your chance of being hit down from 40% to 30%. So I don't know what the frick you think you're on to.
Obviously its effectiveness depends on what you're facing, but generally a front-liner is far better off with a shield than with a two-handed weapon. If you have someone with a reach weapon supporting you, even better.
Because the power attack feat was taken away from one-handed weapons and only made usable with heavy weapons, and PAM and CBE giving their respective weapon a bonus action attack made every other melee/ranged weapon obsolete.
Ban PAM and CBE, and make GWM usable with any melee weapon and it's fixed. Or just play pathfinder.
>D&D
>Good combat
>Engaging mechanics
>Capability to differentiate between weapon types
Good joke
having to be right next to someone to hit them in a game with as rigid of a move/attack system as every single version of D&D is a gigantic penalty and so using a weapon with range is really important, especially if you don't fight exclusively in narrow hallways so enemies dont just run past you and geek the mage
even back in AD&D fricking darts were one of the best fighter weapons and the only reason you didn't see more of it is because you had less control over what magic weapons your fighter got so you eventually ended up using a sword because it was always a sword that you ended up finding. now that modern D&D is more open to letting you just make whatever weapon you want magic there's no reason to not hit people with a spear
TLDR: play pathfinder 2e or something where you can move more then once in a turn but even then ranged weapons are still better lol
But which is cooler.
Two handers, dual wielding or sword and board.
All of these are the same picture.
>hand crossbow
this should inflict 1 hit point of damage at most. Not 1d6. It also has no capacity to pierce armor or even thick clothing properly so it should have -8 to hit penalty and any creature with damage reduction or piercing weapon damage reduction is immune to damage from it. Any creature with natural armor past a point as well and in general its the least damaging weapon. 1 point of damage with -8 to hit and minimal range. Its not a firearm its a miniaturized crossbow with no real force behind it. No range, no piercing capacity, nothing just nothing. hand crossbows are weapons like a blowgun at best. Poison delivery or nothing but a sting. And hitting the eye is a critical or critical hits, so forget it. The weapon must be removed or updated to nothingness.
>polearms
polearms are great weapons but require 2 hands to wield and some training and skill on how to use them in a way other than a long axe or spear (thrust or hack) and require lots of room to use. Also they cannot be used in "arm's length range" or however you want to call it. Once the swordsman or other such melee weapon is close you die.
Great damage yes, great range yes, it must have reduce capacity or uselessness in "arm's length range" and cannot be used indoors, usually.
>sword and shield
this is the best combination in a dungeon, narrow corridor and in most enclosed spaces as well as the best combination due to the fact that is protects you and lets you get close, in an open field or a room, and deliver a blow safely and the shield can be used to bash as well. A shield bash can break a man's face fully, compare with the hand crossbow that has little to not enough force to do anything right. The greek word, another one, for shield was hoplon which means weapon (another word for shield was aspida or aspis).
1d8 damage for longsword? yes and add 1d6 for a shield bash and remove 1d6 for the hand crossbow which is science fiction at this point.
>polearms
also add that you can be flanked easily despite its great advantages and and if engaged in arms’ length range you are considered flanked.
Along with some penalty for continuing to use the polearm.
Polearm should have advantage in reach, but disadvantage in face to face.
I would also love to change the AC system, so that weapons also grant some bonus to it, ie sword grants better AC bonus than handaxe. Long spear would grant good defence against charging enemies but no bonus in close quarters and possibly penalty to hit.
Now i see the problem.. it would require too much maths. Separate AC against ranged, different AC against enemies attacking face to face and reach.. yeah
I wouldnt love it tho
>why does 5e-
Because it’s bad.