XP, gold, and alignment

In the "old school" versions of D&D, gold was the main way to get XP. Monsters would give you some XP, but most of your experience would come from treasure. This encouraged going around monsters, parlaying, etc. Modern versions of D&D usually make killing monsters the most important way of getting XP, which makes PCs monster-slayers and a greater part of the game to revolve around combat.

One popular house rule for old school games is making spending gold, not acquiring it, a source of XP. This justifies some sword&sorcery tropes like the carousing barbarian who is always broke.

Another source of XP in some versions of D&D is "good role-playing", i.e., accurately playing your character's personality gives you extra XP. This is often tied to alignment. For example, a good cleric might spare bandits and gain XP because of that. Whether this is a good idea remains a heavily debated topic - one downside is that it makes the DM pass judgement on the characters actions, and leads to endless debates about alignment.

In my game, Dark Fantasy Basic, for example, there are several ways to gain XP, each with its own special rules: treasure, monsters, surviving extreme risks, and achievements (making an impact upon the world) - but no extra XP for "good role-playing".

One way to avoid judgment and debate is making these XP prizes objective and automatic. Jeff Rients has some awesome ideas for that, and I feel that they could be expanded in a complete XP system that would make alignment relevant but not constraining.

Let's give it a try.

For example, using some of my Dark Fantasy Basic categories as guidelines:

Treasure:
* Lawful: gets XP when spending gold on charity, church, helping the needed, etc.
* Neutral: gets XP when spending gold on anything, but only half as much.
* Chaotic: gets XP when spending gold while carousing, buying drinks, etc. Giving to chaotic deities will also do the trick!

Monsters:
* Lawful: double XP for defeating chaotic creatures, no XP for defeating lawful ones.
* Neutral: normal XP plus 10% bonus.
* Chaotic: triple XP for defeating lawful creatures. They are much less common.

Achievements:
* Lawful: adds 10% to current XP upon building the first church for a deity, gaining an honorific title, etc.
* Neutral: adds 10% to current XP upon gaining a nobility title, starting a neutral organization, etc.
* Chaotic: adds 10% to current XP upon destroying an organization or temple, starting a thieves' guild, etc.

A more interesting take on that would be giving each adventures or session some extra XP that would vary according to the groups' choices. For example, in the end of an adventure, the PCs have the option to give the relics they found to the nearby church, sell the to the highest bidder, or desecrate them in a bargain with darker powers in order to gain new spells. The first option would give XP to lawful PCs, and so on.

This would encourage - but not force - PCs to associate with people who have similar goals and worldviews.

Further reading:
http://jrients.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/xp-and-alignment.html
http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.com.br/2017/12/gold-for-experience-in-5th-edition-d.html

Dark Fantasy Basic is here!

My first published RPG, Dark Fantasy Basic - Player's Guide, is on DTRPG!

Click the link above or the one below to check it out:

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide?src=newest_recent&coverSizeTestPhase2=true&word-variants=true

Let me know if you have any questions!

In any case, I'll post a FAQ here in a few days.

Here is the finished cover, by the awesome Rick Troula:

Dark Fantasy Basic is an old school roleplaying game (or adventure game) that pays homage to a beloved 80's game - which is still, for many fans, one of the most concise, clear and well-written RPGs ever published.

This book uses the same system as the world’s most popular RPGs – six abilities, classes, levels, etc. – and it is meant to be compatible with games from that era. Or any OSR game, really. It also has some modern influences, including all of the OSR and the most recent version of this game.

This is a complete game (from the player's side), with five classes (fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user and hopeless), skills, feats, weapons, etc.

There are no races - all PCs are human or similar - but there are notes on how to create races for your games.

There are 20 different spells but each one is flexible, meaning you can choose the spell level and some of the effects as you cast them.

The book ends with conversion notes for other OSR games. No matter what your favorite system is, we hope you find something useful for your games here!

Giants vs. Dragons vs. Worm

Foes of the Dragons. In times long forgotten, giants and dragons engaged in seemingly endless war. Storm giants created the first behirs as weapons against the dragons, and behirs retain a natural hatred for dragonkind. A behir never makes its lair in an area it knows to be inhabited by a dragon. If a dragon attempts to establish a lair within a few dozen miles of a behir's lair, the behir is compelled to kill the dragon or drive it off. Only if the dragon proves too powerful to fight does a behir back down, seeking out a new lair site a great distance away.
- D&D 5e Monsters Manual

Well, there is another story.

As the behir's color, shape and lighting breath can surely prove, the first behirs were not "created" by storm giants, but shaped by them from defeated blue dragons.

Most dragons were simply slain for daring to resist the (superior) giant race, but blue dragons wielded lighting, and the storm giants could not forgive such a sin against their elements.

First, their wings, arms and legs were ripped off, and then they were thrown, like agonizing worms, into claustrophobic tunnel-prisons, never to see the sun again, never to taste the freedom of the endless skies.

Eventually, the dragons used their magic to grow small legs that would allow them to move and escape, but the predicament drove them mad.

Turned into multi-legged abominations, behirs hide their shame deep into the earth, hating everyone and everything, especially well-formed dragons and the light of the sun.

If you see a behir, it is unlikely to let you live.

On the other hand...

Some people do not believe that behirs are created by accident. These scholars say that, as fire giants shape metal, storm giants shape flesh.

They believe themselves to have in their blood a genetic power that makes them perfect. Every other creature is subject to experimentation... and improvement.

They hate dragons, of course. And they hate magic. And fey. But they love science, their "blood-shaping" art more than anything.

Some say all giants are the result of their experimentation - maybe even themselves. Other think the lower giant to be primitive, or decadent forms of storm giants. The stupid hill giants certainly look like a debased version of their nobler cousins.

But it could be worse.

Fey Curse. The elves remember when the fomorians were among the most handsome of races, possessed of brilliant minds and unrivaled magical ability. That physical perfection did not extend to their hearts, however, as a lust for magic and power consumed them. The fomorians sought to conquer the Feywild and enslave its inhabitants, claiming those creatures' magic for themselves. When the fey united to defend their realm, the fomorians fought them and were subjected to a terrible curse. One by one, the giants fell as their bodies were warped to reflect the evil in their hearts. Stripped of their grace and magical power, the wretched horrors fled from the light, delving deep beneath the world to nurse their hatred. Cursing their fate, they have ever after plotted vengeance against the fey that wronged them.

Or so the elves say.

But the "curse" was something different entirely.

See, "the most handsome of races, possessed of brilliant minds" were certainly storm giants.

But they messed with something storm giants were not supposed to - maybe magic, yes, but more likely defeat. Storm giants despise the weak. After being beaten by the fey, these vile cowards were reshaped into something hideous by their giant kin, and forced to fight the fey until the end of time.

Like behirs, they hide in deep caves and avoid being seem by others - specially giants.

Magic can do nothing for them. Only the storm giants can reshape them back - if they ever fulfill their duty of slaying all the fey.

Golems are obviously the giants' creation too - artificial beings made of earth, metal or flesh, resistant to magic, immune to shape-changing, and made to the (twisted) image of their progenitors.

The dragons and the fey are beings of magic, air, beauty, and freedom. They do not always get along, of course - but they rely on each other to survive and thrive. Sometimes, they are like like lions and gazelles.

Giants - who cannot understand magic or reach to the skies, no matter how tall the mountains their climb - hate the fey and want to destroy them.

Humans? Eh. They will often fight for one side or the other, but are not essential in the grand scheme of things. Both giants and dragons seem to think they are clearly inferior and are not ashamed of using them as plaything, slaves or food.

The Worm

The Abyss is a grey, rocky, and dead place, full of wide spaces, where almost nothing seems to move.

It might be older than time.

Some say that is why the dead - and undead - turn to grey, and why the graves are marked with stones.

And probably why giants give so much importance to their boulders, and why the dragons and the fey - in defiance of death and decay - are so colorful.

In the middle of the Abyss, lies the Worm.

The Worm's colors are grey, yellow and purple.

You will hardly find dragons of these colors. Instead, dragons are the colors of the sky, the clouds, the trees, or living blood - things the Worm usually misses or despises.

As fire giants shape metal and storm giants shape flesh, the Worm shapes time.

Deep in the Abyss, it sends forth their sons and minions to conquer the earth, or manipulates people to worship it.

The purple worm that inhabits the ground, the salamanders that live into fire, the aboleths that rule the waters.

The Petrifying Serpents such as the medusa, cocaktrices and basilisks, that want to turn the world into a stony wasteland to please their master.

And the wingless grey angels that travel through time and space and seem to come from nowhere.

The nagas and yuan-ti, obviously - and who knows what else?

Maybe the undead that pull the living to the underworld, or the aberrations that mock nature.

If it looks like a snake, or reptile, or a dragon - without wings - it was probably created by the Worm.

Likewise, if it looks like something that was never meant to exist, is is probably Worm-spawn. Not hybrid animals, such as the beautiful Pegasus, a colorful pixie or couatl, or the giant dragon turtle that fights the worms of the sea - but something with tentacles, uncountable legs, twisted limbs, numerous eyes... or no no eyes at all.

Some say the Worm avoids fire, and its minions fear it, preferring to use poison and decay as their weapons. But some servants of the Worm can relish in fire too - is is just less common.

In spite of all that, the main power of the Worm is not creating monsters, but seducing the innocent.

Storm giants, serpent cultists, drow, mind-flayers and sahuagin - they might all be worshiping the Worm, wittingly or not, since so few people understand what the Worm is.

As they stare into the Abyss... the Worm will happily stare back at them, and show them they are special, perfect, superior to all others, no matter what they say.

The Worm will promise them a perfect world.

But, in reality, the Worm hates the world. And nature. And most colors. And the sky, above all else.

Because, as powerful as the Worm is, it can never leave the Abyss, like the dragons did in ancient times.

But - given enough time - it might make the Abyss swallow everything.

Further readings (some of my inspirations for this post):

* http://udan-adan.blogspot.com.br/2016/04/give-me-snake-man-and-i-will-explain.html
* Dark Souls lore.
* Obscene Serpent Religion.

Moral of the story (if there is one): sometimes, a single origin for many monsters might be more interesting than monsters coming randomly from everywhere. Also, Evil versus Chaos might be more interesting than Good versus Evil.

All images copyright of Wizards of the coast.

---

UPDATE (2020): this is now an entire chapter in TERATOGENICON!

Teratogenicon is my monster generator - for ANY system! If you like this post, you'll probably like it. You can find more stuff like this on my Dark Fantasy line.

It is also a great way to support this blog!

Hope you enjoy it! Thanks!

Coming soon: Dark Fantasy Basic

Yeah, it's happening.



Dark Fantasy Basic, my BX retro-clone with bits of 5e and WotC-D&D, is coming soon!

The awesome cover above is by Rick Troula.

The book, a 45-page player's guide, will be on DTRPG before the end of the year.

Stay tuned for more updates and information!

D&D 5e fighting styles comparison

In 5e some classes have fighting styles in order to be more effective with a particular type of weapon or technique.

There are also feats that make you better with one style or the other. Feats like Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon Master are some of the best feats in the game.

Some real-world and fantasy styles are sorely missing, and if you are swinging a weapon without an adequate feat (either because you didn't pick it or because it doesn't exit), you are probably getting outshined by warriors who have them.

Here is a brief analysis of the fighting styles and related feats.

Please notice that these are GENERIC; each class has considerations of their own, which I might briefly comment on, but I do not intend to be exhaustive.

Heavy armor + bow = suboptimal in 5e (source).

Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to Attack rolls you make with Ranged Weapons.

Pretty straightforward. Combining it the Sharpshooter feat makes it a lot better than most styles. Ignoring the penalties due to distance and cover, with a +2 bonus on top of that (and a Bless spell in some cases), guarantees you will be hitting your target often enough, even with a -5 penalty, so you basically get 20 points of damage per hit (if you're using a longbow with Dexterity 20)... against targets that might be unable to fight back.

Defense: While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Seems a bit boring at first, but consider it stacks with any other fighting style and doesn't use bonus actions or reactions. The better your armor, the better this style gets; if an enemy only hits you by rolling 18 or more, this style will cut one third of the damage you take, for example. Great against multiple weaker enemies.

I can see this being more useful than Great Weapon Fighting if you're a paladin with a polearm, among other possibilities.

Spear + shield = not that great either (source).

Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other Weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to Damage Rolls with that weapon.

This is made for anyone with a one-handed weapon plus shield. It gives you a greater damage boost than GWF, below, and you get +2 AC from the shield. Without any feats, this can be more powerful than GWF in most circumstances - all things considered, if you were using a two-handed weapon you'd usually be dealing a little more damage (less than 20%), but avoiding more than 20% damage from the increased AC.

Shield Master is also a very good feat. Shoving a creature might be more useful than dealing damage and the boost to Dexterity saves is excellent.

Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an Attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

This adds very little damage to your attacks - about 1 point on average, a bit more for greatswords, a bit less for everything else. Fortunately, great weapons already deal lots of damage. The main perk of using heavy weapons is still the Great Weapon Master feat. Although it allows you to attack at -5 to-hit/+10 to damage like sharpshooter, GWM is somewhat worse for a couple of reasons:

* You are more likely to get attacked back immediately, making the -2 AC you lose from the shield more relevant.

* Since you deal more damage on average and you don't get the +2 bonus from archery, the +10 damage is not as important; knowing when to use  GWM is a bit tricky (here is the formula).

On the other hand, the feat gives you a melee weapon attack as a bonus action sometimes, which is not bad, specially for a Champion fighter.

Protection: When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the Attack roll. You must be wielding a Shield.

This is very flavorful, but has some heavy downsides. Imposing disadvantage is meaningful, but it uses your reaction - and at higher levels, monster damage is usually divided among several attacks, and this will only work against one. You also have to be within 5 feet of your ally - which limits its utility.

Not a great style in my opinion.

Heavy armor + longsword + shortsword (?) = no reason to do that (source).

Two-Weapon Fighting: When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second Attack.

Attacking twice per round deals decent damage at lower levels, but it becomes increasingly less useful as you get more attacks as a fighter, and it doesn't work well with an action surge.

If you get magic weapons, you also need one magic weapon for each hand... and each might require attunement. Same thing with the Magic Weapon spell.

This style is a bit better for rogues and rangers... but it uses your bonus action. Thing is, rangers and rogues often have better things to do with their bonus actions. On the other hand, rogues get a second chance of landing a sneak attack (and rangers their Hunter's Mark, Colossus slayer etc.), making this style more useful. 

The Dual Wielder feat is also very underwhelming. +1 AC is nice, and using a rapier in each hand - as ridiculous as I think this looks - gives you a +1 damage boost per attack, but you still lose your bonus action, and it doesn't help you land that sneak attack. Of course, if you had picked the dueling style you'd have the same +2 damage boost and a +2 AC boost, without using a feat.

Or - guess what - you could just pick +2 Dexterity instead of the feat! The AC bonus would be the same, the damage boost would be equal (+1 per attack on average), you'd get +1 to hit and better initiative, saves and skills!

I guess you can use the feat if you're have Dexterity 20, want to throw weapons, or have Strength instead of Dexterity... but it all pales in comparison to the other feats mentioned here.

Of course, this is not a bad choice for rogues, and in my opinion rogues work well enough even with these downsides. Notice that rogues do not get fighting styles (in this case, it means they don't get their ability bonus to the damage of the second attack) but using one weapon in each hand works for them anyway. 

In any case, it still bothers me that holding a quarterstaff or lance in each hand is a viable tactic in 5e, while sword and main-gauche is not, but mechanically the only issue is using your bonus action.

The worst thing, I think, is that this style doesn't stack with anything; your AC is probably too low to make the defense style useful; you cannot boost your damage with dueling, or use powerful feats like Polearm Master, etc. - and the dual wielder feat is near useless is most circumstances. 

In short, TWF is a bad choice for fighters; not good enough for rangers (but they are being revised anyway); and decent for rogues, even though ranged combat is usually a better choice.

To be 100% honest I kinda LIKE that this style is suboptimal, because I think in real life there would be little reason to use this over sword and board under most circumstances. But TWF has enough D&D tradition and fans to deserve a bit more love in 5e.

But why have fighting styles at all?

So we've got a bunch of fighting styles. Three of them (dueling, GWF, archery) are basically bonuses to damage or attacks, while defense is a small bonus to AC. TWF and protection aren't very good. GWF is a convoluted way of giving extra damage while making the greatsword - a weapon that needs no boosts - even better.

In short, you wouldn't lose much if you would just let PCs choose any fighting style and get two out of three options: +1 to damage, +1 to-hit or +1 to AC. Getting a second fighting style would allow you to get +1 to all three in some circumstances, but not more than +1 for each.

And this simple change would make:

* TWF more viable for different builds.

* The combination of archery and sharpshooter less powerful (which is good).

* GWF equally useful to greataxes, halberds and greastwords.

* New styles easy to create and justify (what about a defensive quarterstaff style? etc.).

* And all styles a bit more flexible.

Simpler and better all around.

In conclusion

Overall, I think that the fighting styles are balanced and simple enough. It is probably my favorite version of D&D in this regard (yes, I DO think the RC made it too complicated).

Is there room for improvement?

Yes, specially in the last two fighting styles.

Is there enough reason to complain?

Not really, in my opinion.

(but I'm fixing it anyway!)

What about Tasha's? [2022 update]

Here is my analysis.

---
Support this blog!

To support this blog, buy my books on DTRPG! Try my 5e Manual of Arms: Weapons or any of my books. If you prefer comic books, check The Displaced series. Many titles are free!

Alternatively, click here or on the DriveThruRPG banner on the right. Any shopping you do through this link - even form other authors - helps us!

In addition, there are many other ways to support this blog! Share and recommend it, leave comments, etc. 

Thank you all for your audience and support!

5e Weapons remade: some perspective on weapon damage

Before we continue deconstructing 5e weapons, let us add a little perspective on damage.

Weapon damage in 5e is divided in these steps:

1 - 1d4 - 1d6 - 1d8 - 1d10 - 1d12 - 2d6

And these are the average rolls:

1 - 2.5 - 3.5 - 4.5 - 5.5 - 6.5 - 7.

Which would indicate, at a first glance, that seven punches (damage 1) are roughly equivalent to one hit with a greatsword (damage 2d6).

But consider most characters that use weapons will have an ability bonus of +4 or +5, with few exceptions. So let us consider damage with a +5 bonus (this will be the most common situation after a few levels):

6 - 7.5 - 8.5 - 9.5 - 10.5 - 11.5 - 12.

Now two punches beat one blow with the battleaxe. What is more, the difference between one weapon and the other becomes quite small - around 10% from one step to the next.

In some versions of D&D, damage was the main property of a weapon - in Moldvay, for example, the 1d8 longsword is the king of all one-handed weapons, leaving little reason to have a mace unless you're a cleric.

In other versions, ALL weapon deal the 1d6 damage, making other properties such as speed more relevant. In Holmes Edition, by a strict interpretation of the rules, there is little mechanical reason to use any weapon that is not a dagger! AD&D had detailed tables to show how some weapons were better against some types of armor.

All this complicated rules are often ignored; but damage dice became ubiquitous in every version of  D&D after Holmes, and still, is my opinion, the first thing people see when reading the weapon list (even when playing GURPS, I have seem players call their guns "my 7d weapon", ignoring range, rate of fire, cost, etc.)

This might be psychological - nevertheless, since it affects some player's FUN, it is as real as it gets in our hobby.

In any case, as we have shown, damage dice is not as relevant as it may seem.

A small weapon that lets you attack twice because of a bonus action might beat a two-handed weapon that lets you attack once, even for a mighty-thewed warrior. A weapon that allows you to take one additional attack or two during the whole combat - with a reaction, for example - might be more useful than a weapon that simply deals more damage, since hitting a foe with your attack action ten times in a single combat (to justify that 10% difference) might not happen that often.

Finally, there are certain class features - sneak attack, a paladin's smite - that will cause the same damage regardless of the weapon being used, making weapon damage even less relevant. The monk's "martial arts" feature will make weapon damage entirely irrelevant in many cases!

On the other hand, using bonus actions or reactions to deal damage is often impossible or sub-optimal. This will vary considerably according to character traits and circumstances.

Feats are also extremely important. The Great Weapon Master feat makes the difference between the greatsword (2d6) and the greataxe (1d12) negligible - less than 3% difference in damage output. The difference is considerably more important to a character with moderate Strength and without the feat (maybe around 20% instead of 3%).

Let is put it this way: if you're not skilled in using weapons, getting the best weapon is important - but if you're skilled, it is important to get the weapon you're most used to.

In short, character build (class features and feats) and the action economy are more important than weapon damage when choosing your weapon.

This also means is that a property such as "reach", "ranged" or "thrown" might be better than extra damage even if you hardly use it... UNLESS you are not a warrior type and hardly use your weapon in the first place!

This might look very complicated (too complicated in my opinion), but we cannot understand the system without considering these variables.

5e Weapons Remade: the basics

In order to remake the 5e weapon list (click here to know why), let us pick it apart.

I'm obviously not the first one to do that, not by a long shot. Here is a very good breakdown, for example, but there are many others.

The basics are clear enough: one handed weapons melee weapons deal 1d6 damage, 1d8 if martial. Bows are basically the same (but require two hands), although other ranged weapons are a bit different.

Then you have a number of positive (light, finesse, versatile, reach, thrown, ranged, grater damage) and negative properties (two-handed, heavy, loading, smaller damage). The number of positive and negative properties should be more are less balanced.

There is also price and weight. Price is mostly an afterthought once you've got a few levels, but you can take it into consideration for world-building reasons, etc. Weight is also important provided you're tracking encumbrance. But none of the two should count as a "positive" or "negative" property by itself; otherwise, the PCs would be walking around with expensive 20-pound swords to inflict maximum damage.

But the other properties are also NOT equal. So let us consider some of them.

Light/Heavy - light weapons are only good for dual-wielding, and heavy weapons are only bad for small characters. The effect of these properties are therefore a less important than the rest.

There is a caveat, though: the Great Weapon Master makes heavy weapons significantly stronger. So, the "heavy" property is not really a strictly negative property.

Another thing to consider is that ALL heavy weapons are martial and two-handed. And ALL two-handed martial weapons are heavy. So, in theory it seems you could get rid of the "heavy" property and just say all two-handed martial weapons are heavy. 

Light weapons are more straightforward - since they could potentially be useful to almost any character, the "light" property is strictly positive. Martial weapons that are light cause 1d6 damage, and ALL martial weapons that cause 1d6 damage are light (except for the trident). Light weapons are always ranged, thrown, finesse or cause 1d4 damage.

Note that light/heavy weapons, curiously enough, have nothing to do with weight, but SIZE (or bulk): "A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large..."; "A light weapon is small and easy to handle...".

Needlessly misleading IMO.

Finesse - this is a big one. Strength has few advantages over Dexterity in 5e, and making finesse weapons a bit weaker guarantees there will be some strong warriors going around.

Take into consideration that, since ranged weapons use Dexterity anyway, the "thrown" property is less valuable when combined with this one (see below).

Thrown - Thrown weapons are useful, but ranged weapons have better range, and drawing a new weapon is a bit problematic (there is debate of whether you can draw a new weapon as a bonus action, reaction, or extra attack, for example). There are no good feats (like the excellent Sharpshooter) for thrown weapons, so they are generally worse than ranged weapons.

On the other hand, thrown weapons have limited damage - probably to avoid Strength characters to dominate ranged combat.

To complicate things further, "thrown" for ranged weapons means you MUST throw your weapon, instead of you CAN throw. So while it is a POSITIVE property for melee weapons, it is a NEGATIVE property for ranged weapons.

Fortunately, ranged weapon with the thrown property are so unique (the dart is way cheaper than anything else, and the net doesn't cause damage) that they should be considered separately.

Also, see "finesse", above.

(Off topic, but... what IS a dart anyway? It is not a javelin, nor does a pilum (a type of javelin) or anything similar would weight 0.25 lb. I guess the answer is probably "shuriken" or most likely "kunai ninja darts". The fact that it is a simple weapon causes the same damage than a dagger is quite strange)

Versatile/Two-handed - versatile is a good property to have... but not great, since you are unlikely to change between one and two hands very often during the same combat. If you make it two valuable, people will prefer carrying two different weapons. Two-handed is a heavy downside - you lose +2 AC because you-re not using a shield.

The situation is different for ranged weapons. Most ranged weapons require two hands anyway, so a "one handed" property would make more sense here. Shields are usually less important, since there is a distinct possibility that your enemy cannot fire back immediately- and the errata explains you need a free hand to use a one-handed weapon with the ammunition property anyway.

So this "one-handed" property would be a bit less valuable than it may appear.

Loading - this property is a real problem for characters that have more than one attack per turn (even though it can be ignored by the Crossbow Expert feat). In short, very bad for most characters that rely on weapons to cause damage, but good for rogues, etc. The only weapon with this property other than crossbows are blowguns... which are outliers. In any case, the effect is pretty clear: crossbows damage is usually one step greater than bows.

Greater/smaller damage - 5e has six damage "steps": 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 and 2d6. Each step should usually count as one negative or positive property. Even though the difference between 1d12 and 2d6 seems small, the Great Weapon Fighting style makes 2d6 as valuable as the other steps for those who have it.

In my opinion, if we had 1d2 and 1d3 damage it would be a lot easier to deal with improvised weapons, shield bashing, shurikens, brass knuckles, kicks, punches, etc., but that is something I'll have to analyse later.

In conclusion...

This is a lot more complicated than I though - and probably a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Let us see if we can fix it...

Why 5e D&D NEEDS better weapons... and Miyamoto Musashi

A small list of things I'd like to see in D&D 5e:

- More weapons. Just compare the weapons in 5e to the number of spells we have. The weapon list is ridiculously small. And the list of spells is growing a LOT faster.

- Better weapons and armor. Half of the weapon list is useless (mace, trident, scimitar, sickle, etc). Same goes for armor once you get enough money.

- More effective two-weapon styles. There is no Niten Ichi-ryū - or anything similar - in 5e. There is no point in using a lighter weapon in one of your hands. There is not any way to create a cahrachter that would be better using such style - not even the samurai or swashbuckler. Miyamoto Musashi is right out.

- A swashbuckler... with a buckler. Or cloak. Or at least an useful main-gauche! Not this "dual wielding rapiers" nonsense you have barely ever seen if a book, movie or real life.

- A finesse spearman. Like Oberyn Martell. Or this. Yeah, 5e has monks, I know, but I don't want ki - just a Dexterity fighter that is better with a spear.

- A katana. Not really, just messing with you. I could use a few more weapons but about  30 diverse, reasonable weapons would do.

- Better polearms! We might avoid Gygaxian levels of detail, but to make IDENTICAL polearms is a waste of space. Polearms were used as peasant weapons, so its doubtful if they should be martial weapons - or if martial weapons have any function at all. The spear should probably be included in the Polearm Master feat.

- More differentiation between bludgeoning, slashing and piercing. They do next to nothing as written.

- A warlord. But I digress.

- A reason to have both Strength and Dexterity. I've talked about this before, and will do that again. It seems to me that being very strong or very weak should affect using a longbow. But we will get to that eventually.

For now, a better weapon list will do.

I've been discussing the issue over the internet. I realize that not everybody cares. I understand that somr people prefer more archetypes, spells and races. I like melee weapons. That is all.

The problem of 5e's list is not only being unrealistic, unbalanced, unintuitive, or or too complicated; is being all those thing for no reason at all.

Take the quarterstaff: there is no "realistic" reason for it to be wielded one hand with the same damage as a mace. It doesn't make the quarterstaff "balanced" with the mace. It doesn't even make he game simpler or faster.

It is just... random.

I can accept realistic, like GURPS.

I can accept "balanced". like 4e (I guess).

I can accept "simple", like 13A.

Any of those, or a mix, would be fine.

I just don't particularly like this system that is none of the above.

And, make no mistake - I LOVE 5E.

The classes are great, the (bazillions of) spells are good and balanced enough, backgrounds are awesome, inspiration is on point, the skill list is fine, etc.

But I've got to admit - they really dropped the ball with the weapons and armor, and made no effort to pick it back.

Enough complaining. Time to try to make this work.

UPDATE (14/10/2019): I released a book (5e Manual of Arms: Weapons) that deals with weapons in 5e. Check it out below!

---
Support this blog!

To support this blog, buy my books on DTRPG! Try my 5e Manual of Arms: Weapons or any of my books. If you prefer comic books, check The Displaced series. Many titles are free!

Alternatively, click here or on the DriveThruRPG banner on the right. Any shopping you do through this link - even form other authors - helps us!

In addition, there are many other ways to support this blog! Share and recommend it, leave comments, etc. 

Thank you all for your audience and support!

Should we trust MIKE MEARLS on 5e D&D monster math?

So Mike Mearls‏ tweeted this:

Mike Mearls‏ @mikemearls11 de nov

Want to cut down on referencing monster stats as you play? Use half a monster's CR as its bonus for all checks and saves. If the monster has legendary actions or is notably powerful in your campaign, also add its proficiency bonus.

Needless to say, Mike Mearls‏ did an amazing job with 5e, so he must  know what he is talking about.

And, honestly, I take Sage Advice (and pretty much everything that Mike Mearls‏ and Jeremy Crawford tweet) almost as canon. They made the game, after all, and have some amazing insights on it.

Unfortunately, this particular tip makes seems to make no sense when compared to actual 5e numbers.

If you follow he link to the tweet, you'll see an user named Dylan ran the numbers and got some very interesting results... some of which I don't fully understand.

I don't really tweet, so I can't participate on the conversation directly, but the subject interests me.

In any case, I wanted to make a quick check myself.

Let us take the first monsters in alphabetical order, from here:

Aboleth (CR 10) - saving throws are Con +6, Int +8, Wis +6, plus Dex -1, Str +5, and Cha +4. Average +4.6. Pretty close to half CR... however... it has legendary actions, so you'd add proficiency bonus, making its it rolls ALL the checks and saves at +9. Comparing this to the monster's actual dexterity save, at -1 shows it is absurd - but +9 is also twice the size of the average saving throw. The aboleth also has only two skills - for everything else, the bonus would be way lower than +9.

Acolyte (CR 1/4) - well, with CR 1/4, I have to agree that just giving it +0 to everything is good enough.

Adult Black Dragon (CR 14) - saving throws are Dex +7, Con +10, Wis +6, Cha +8, plus Str +6 and Intelligence +2. Pretty good saves, with an average of 6.5... Unlike Mearls formula, that would give it +12 to all saves. Skills? The dragon has Perception +11, Stealth +7. Not a single +12 skill, and most checks would be even lower than the saves on average.

Air Elemental (CR 5) - not proficient in ANY saving throws, nor skills. Good! Its checks and saves are one and the same. We have STR 14 (+2) DEX 20 (+5) CON 14 (+2) INT 6 (-2) WIS 10 (0) CHA 6 (-2), and average of +0.83 to all checks. Mike's formula gives us +2 or +3. It might seem like a small difference, but it fails by more than 200%, maybe 300%, like the other examples.

So, yeah, as written, the original tweet does not work very well.

Is there a good formula?

As you know, the DMG has a (hidden) formula for attacks, AC, save DC, HP, damage, etc. (a formula that the MM doesn't actually follow very well, but this is another topic), but not for saves and checks.

Dylan has suggested some. I don't have access to any compiled monster database (please send it to me if you do!), nor am I a mathematician, so I cannot really criticize his work.

But, from my experiences and (limited) number-crunching, I'd guess that for AVERAGE checks, the bonus should be equal to proficiency bonus (i.e., 2+1/4 CR). I think Dylan suggests this for "max ability check bonus", so I'm not sure he takes saves into consideration.

Using the proficiency works well enough for the Aboleth and Adult Black Dragon. It doesn't work well for the Acolyte or Air Elemental - here Mike's formula is better. It seems Mike's suggestion is better for low CRs - at least in this VERY LIMITED sample.

Next creature in line (skipping the Dragons) would be the Androsphinx. Average save about +8 in reality, checks would probably be lower, +6 if you use proficiency, +14 (!) if you follow Mearls.

The best part, though, is that there is a pretty intuitive (and somewhat accurate) way of combining all the formulas.

Good: 3 plus ONE THIRD CR*
Average: 2+1/4 CR (which means, equal to proficiency bonus)
Weak: just 1/5 of CR.

* It is he DMG suggestion and close to Dylan's "fit" of 12.34+0.39*CR.

OR:

Good	3	+	1/3 CR
Average	2	+	1/4 CR
Weak	0	+	1/5 CR

You could be even more precise (and still intuitive, I think) by allowing some small variation (use the second number after CR 4):

Good	3 (or 4)	+	1/3 CR
Average	1 (or 2)	+	1/4 CR
Weak	0	+	1/5 CR

The DM gets to decide what the monster is good, average and weak at. Assume EVERY monster is good at attacking, AC and save DC (after all, all characters will use their best stats for such things).

How does it work for the actual monsters studied here?

Aboleth (CR 10): if the DM assumes the Aboleth to be good at Intelligence and Wisdom, it would have +7 to saves and checks with those abilities. Dexterity being its worst check, a +2 bonus (instead of -1). Average stuff? +4. Quite similar to the actual numbers.

Adult Black Dragon (CR 14): best traits are Strength, Constitution,  perception, and stealth (+8 to all, instead of +6, +5, +11, and +7 - which averages around +7). Weakest stat in Intelligence - you get +3 (instead of +2).  Everything eles is average (+5). Again, pretty close.

We could try other examples, but without an actual compilation of data we would not get very far.

So, there you go: if you have a rough idea of the monster's strengths and weaknesses, you can intuitively guess the numbers involved, with some degree of precision.

What is the point?

The fact that you can just google any monster makes this exercise a bit superfluous. But if you have to come up with some numbers on the spot, or create your own monster, this little formulas can be very helpful.

Monster Parts & Boss Fights (D&D 5e quick fix)

Here is some interesting information by Sly Flourish. It seems there are people who think 5e's boss monsters aren't tough enough. Sly mentions many ways to fix that; the most popular one is adding more monsters to the fight, because of the action economy.

There are other possible solutions - I like legendary actions and even multiple reactions myself - but this one is a straightforward solution that doesn't require much mechanical manipulation.

As Sly puts it:

Each side in D&D combat has an overall number of actions they can take. If we have five characters in combat, that group has five full actions it can take. If the other side has ten orcs, those orcs have ten actions to the characters' five. That puts the action economy clearly in favor of the orcs. Even if the orcs are weaker, they have more actions which means they can do more stuff. That's the action economy.

When we think about boss encounters, we often focus on a single monster—like a dragon. In 5e, powerful monsters identified as legendary monsters have legendary actions which improve their action economy, often giving them the equivalent of maybe two to three full actions per round. Yet we sometimes assume that legendary monsters can stand off against four characters or more. If so, even with legendary actions, these monsters are still going to lose the action economy.

It makes perfect sense.

It also makes perfect sense that some bosses would have minions and bodyguards. Adding more monsters is a good solution for most cases.

On the other hand, you might want to give your players a lonely monster from time to time. Having minions as an option is great; making them obligatory is constraining.

But there is one way to "add more monsters to the fight" without actually adding more monsters: monster parts.

...Better than one - Source.

Simply get a monster with a CR that is higher than the party's level would indicate, and let the PCs hack it to pieces - literally. The improved HP and saves will make the monster last longer than usual, but the "maiming" mechanics below will make them a bit less deadly.

The exact mechanics are up to you. You can use something similar to the hydra ("Whenever the hydra takes 25 or more damage in a single turn, one of its heads dies"), any "called shots" rule you like, a "bloodied" condition that depletes your foe when it reaches half HP, making the enemy suffer after being hit with a natural 20, or something unique to your game.

The important part is that the boss loses some of its attacks as the fight goes own - exactly as if it were a bunch of smaller enemies - and that the PCs know that they can make the monster weaker.

It is easy to explain the situation to your players if the monster has three heads, a dangerous tail, or multiple eye-stalks. For example, you can give your 3rd level party a Chimera to fight, split the HP, and let them tell you which head they are targeting with each attack.

More fun than a bag of HP! - Image copyright WotC

Humanoids are a bit harder - hacking enemies feels unfair if they can't hack you back. Fortunately, humanoids seem to be more gregarious than Chimeras! So literally "adding more adversaries" work very well here!

Here is a list of effects you might add for a multi-part creature:

* A big monster suffers more damage from an area effect than a small one. Or not.
* A monster part can be target with a reaction from the PC being attacked.
* A monster loses the ability to escape after having their wings or legs hurt.
* A monster loses the will to fight as the number of attacks is diminished.
* A hacked monster part becomes a weapon.
* Damage that exceeds the maximum damage a body part can take is wasted - which both allows the monster to live longer and make the PCs accomplish something. You can also allow the PCs to use their cleave-like abilities when they reduce a body part to 0 HP.

Some people prefer to make the stakes rise as the fight goes, but I'm not so sure this is the ideal solution; it seems to me that hurting the PCs a bit and then deal less damage as they are low on HP might be better than a few annoying hits and then bringing in the big guns as the PCs are hurt. Making the big monsters a bit less dangerous as the fight goes mirrors most of the PC's tactics well (when first encountering a boss monster they will usually spend all their powers).

With that said, I'm all for mixing things up from time to time. Let some monsters get more dangerous when they're hurt!

Another cool thing is that if the PCs are near death and see no changes in their opponents... they know it is time to run away! Ideally, the decreasing damage per round will avoid a surprise TPK... most of the times.

But you wanted a BOSS monster, didn't you?

Apprentice’s Weapons and Magic Items (for D&D 5e)

Apprentice’s Weapons are special items that can be used efficiently by anyone - even if they aren't proficient. They are probably more expensive, rarer or even magical when compared to common weapons. They might have been created by wizards for themselves or their incompetent minions, or by a gifted blacksmith to help rebelling villagers against oppressive knights.

In game terms, anyone is proficient with this weapon. A wizard using an Apprentice’s Glaive, for example, would at her proficiency bonus to the attack.

This idea is inspired by this post at Don't Split the Party (invented in 79!). Check the blog if you will, it has some awesome stuff.

Now, let us expand the idea further.

Magic Items for Dummies

Adding the "Apprentice’s" template to magic weapons and items would allow them to be used by characters that are not proficient or that ordinarily cannot be attuned to them.

This would allow non-proficient characters to use magic weapons, but also  non-spellcasters to cast spells with staves and wands!

As a general rule, all apprentice’s items should require attunement.

Of course, these apprentice’s items would be rarer or somewhat worse than their DMG counterparts.

Alternatively, you can make it worse only when used by an apprentice, while working as written on the DMG if wielded by the intended classes. You can even use this method to give PCs a "taste" of the item and encourage them to take the adequate proficiency if they want to make full use of the item.

Some examples of limitations (choose two or more of than, or add other limitations):

1. Charges. If an item has charges, the apprentice's version has half as many charges (round down).
2. Save DCs. If an item allows the target a save DC, the apprentice's version DC is half the original DC (round down), plus the wielder's Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma modifier depending on the item.
3. Fragility. If an item has a chance of breaking, the apprentice's version has twice as much chance of breaking. If an item does not have a chance of breaking, the apprentice's version might have a small chance of breaking (for example, an apprentice's sword might have 10% chance of breakage if a crit is rolled).
4. Bonuses. If an item gives you a bonus (for example, a +3 sword), the apprentice's version has a smaller bonus (+1 or +2) since amateurs cannot make the best use of it.
5. Spellburn! My go-to answer to the question of "can my Fighter PC cast spells?" is usually "Yes, at his own risk". Which means: if a magic item is used by someone that is not really used to this kind of magic/weapon/etc., give it a small change of creating a magical blowback.

Name variations. To add some mystery to it, you can use other synonyms to name your items.

1. Apprentice’s.
2. Neophyte’s.
3. Novice’s.
4. Fledgling’s.
5. Beginner's.
6. Pupil's.

Random effects. As an alternative, if you want to allow non-proficient characters to use ALL magic items in the game, you can use this method to allow your PCs to make SOME use of magic items that are found randomly and have nothing to do with their characters... before they trade it or sell it, anyway. Here are some possible effects of using an item you're not supposed to use:

1. Fewer charges, low DC (see above).
2. Smaller bonus (maximum +1).
3. Every time you use it, there is a 1-in-20 chance or hurting yourself or having another negative consequence (see "Spellburn", above).
4. Fewer charges, frail (see above).
5. You cannot make head nor tails of this item, but you can roll again after you gain a level.
6. This item is definitely not intended for you. You cannot attune or use it proficiently until you have the required proficiency/class.

Caveat emptor (magic armor)

While letting wizards walk around with +1 swords will not break the game, you should be very careful about armor. Weapon proficiency is easy to come by, unlike armor proficiency. In addition, a fighter with a +2 sword is still better than a wizard due to increased attacks and Strength, but a wizard with +1 plate might have the exact same AC as the fighter! In conclusion, apprentice’s armor should be rare and significantly weaker.

Sample magic items

Fledgling’s Staff of Fire

Staff, Very Rare.

Requires Attunement.

You have Resistance to fire damage while you hold this staff.

The staff has 5 Charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast one of the following Spells from it, using half your spell save DC*: Burning Hands (1 charge), Fireball (3 charges), or Wall of Fire (4 charges).

The staff regains 1d3 + 2 expended Charges daily at dawn. If you expend the last charge, roll a d20. On a 1 or 2, the staff blackens, crumbles into cinders, and is destroyed.

* 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom modifier; and divide the total by two.

Optional: if attuned to a  Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard, it functions as a regular Staff of Fire.

Neophyte’s Sun Blade

Weapon, Rare (requires attunement, longsword)

This item appears to be a longsword hilt. While grasping the hilt, you can use a bonus action to cause a blade of pure radiance to spring into existence, or make the blade disappear. While the blade exists, this magic longsword has the finesse property. While attuned, you are proficient with the Neophyte’s Sun Blade, even if you are not proficient with longswords.

You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this weapon, which deals radiant damage instead of slashing damage. When you hit an undead with it, that target takes an extra 1d4 radiant damage.

The sword's luminous blade emits bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. The light is sunlight.

If you roll a natural 1 while attacking with this weapon, roll another d20. On a 1 or 2, the sword is destroyed in a flash of light, causing 1d6 damage to the wielder.

Optional: If you are proficient with shortswords or longswords, it functions as a regular Sun Blade.

Orbs

Here is some fluff inspired by these ideas; maybe you can use it as fodder for your settings, or ignore it completely.

Think of orbs like pyromancy flames in Dark Souls; a magic weapons anyone can use -  a great equalizer that can potentially make ordinary people almost as dangerous as mighty warriors or magicians. Like firearms, basically.

Orbs are magical implements crafted by hired wizards in ancient to give mighty rulers the power to cast spells. Most wizards hate orbs with a fierce passion, since their existence cheapens the wizards' power, and will likely destroy them on sight before they may fall in wrong hands (or anyone's hands for that matter).

Mechanically, it functions similarly to ring of spell storing, with a few differences:

The orb stores Spells cast into it, holding them until the attuned wearer uses them. The orb holds one spell chosen by the creator at the moment the orb is created, and can store up to a maximum of 5 levels worth of Spells (for example, an Orb of Magic missile will allow one to cast this 1st level spell 5 times). When found, it contains 1d6 - 1 levels of stored Spells chosen by the DM. While holding this orb, you can cast any spell stored in it. The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell Attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

The orb regains 1d4 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the orb's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the orb crumbles into ashes and is destroyed.

Why Starfinder didn't fix Pathfinder (first impressions)

A few random thoughts on Starfinder. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm am no expert in ANY of the two systems. Here is a good comparison, BTW.

Of course, if you like Pathfinder, maybe there is nothing to be "fixed" at all. This is not my case.

But I do LIKE some stuff about Pathfinder. There are too many numbers, but they are in the right ballpark for my tastes (i.e., I like a 7th level fighter with +12 "to-hit" and 50 HP, for example; high level characters feel more "epic" than 5e when compared to low level ones). And there are SO MANY OPTIONS! You can find thousands of feats, classes, races, spells, monsters, etc. on the internet.

Unfortunately, I find PF too complicated, and what is worse, needlessly so - some of the complexity serves no real purpose. I.e., you have many options to adjust your NUMBERS rather than give you a new ARCHETYPE. A few examples: feats that give you a +1 or +2 bonus (which shouldn't exist) in one specific thing; an extensive list of skills; different tables for BAB and saving throws for each single class.

But this stuff shouldn't be that hard to fix, right? Just get rid of all the meaningless feats, skills, etc., and keep the good stuff.

That is what I thought Starfinder would do. Admittedly, I do not play PF and made no effort to learn about SF until a few days ago, when I started talking about it in forums and reading the SRD (I haven't bough the book).

Well, the COVER is certainly cool!

What caught my attention is that SF has lots of good ideas.

Iterative "+12/+7/+2" are gone; skills are reduced to a manageable number; feats are also fewer; and the action economy is a bit simpler, with a reduced numbers of attacks of opportunity, for example. The awful "confirming crits" rule is gone, as well as concepts such as "flat footed AC".

Themes, "subclasses" and simplified ability score generation make character creation a lot easier while still giving you plenty of options.

Overall, SF reads a bit like a mixture of 3.5e, Saga edition, 4e and 5e, which is good.

But I feel that while SF has made some important changes, it avoided going the "extra mile" - maybe for fear of alienating PF fans - and kept a lot of things for tradition's sake. We still get lots of weak "you get a +1 bonus" feats (TBH I don't even think +1 bonuses should exist), detailed modifiers, pointless prerequisites (believe me, the wizard with +4 BAB will NOT break the game by taking a combat feat), etc.

It also ADDED some new mechanics, stats, etc., to the game... So the overall level of complexity remains almost unchanged. For example, now we have Resolve and Stamina in addition to HP... They seem to work very well (Resolve seem like a worthy addition), allowing for quick recovery after a fight and fixing the "5 minutes workday" problem. On the other hand, Stamina is so similar to HP that a simpler fix might work without the need of one additional stat. And now the sum of HP and Stamina is so high that damage is boosted as well. The result of this arms race being that we are routinely dealing with things like 75 HP + 17 Sta - 23 damage = 69 HP... at level 7, in addition to having multiple features to improve your damage.

This is one of the many things Starfinder seems to ALMOST make right. Let us see...

* Saving throws are improved (the soldier class gets better saves, for example, which is good), but they could have taken the extra step and unified all, like Saga Edition (and why the heck is the soldier bad at "dodge returning fire", while the mechanic is good at it???...).

* Magic is curtailed, not fixed; they just avoid spells beyond level 6.

* Skills are fewer, but the skill system is still convoluted: you have skill ranks per level, class skills, skill focus, skill synergy, skill expertise... Call me crazy, but a concept such as "you're good with these skills" could be created ONE single mechanic.

I cannot resist giving you one example: "In addition, when you roll your expertise die, you can add 2d8 rather than 1d8+4 to the result of your skill check." Did you really need a rule that adds HALF A POINT, on average, to your skill check?

A but simpler than PF but then again... - Source.

In short, "when in doubt, keep things as they are" is not a bad way of dealing with things if you want to keep your fanbase, but it might get in your way if you're looking for new customers.

This is focused on the MECHANICS, of course. I don't have much to say about the FLAVOR, other than seeing features like "Plasma Immolation", "Mindkiller" and "Explode Head" makes me want to play this game, maybe in a WH40k setting.

Overall, I LIKE what Starfinder does. It has plenty of good ideas, and is a bit simpler than PF while giving you innumerable options for customizing your character. For me, it feels like a lost opportunity to make PF a simpler game - which would necessarily include slaying some holy cows, and wasn't a top priority it seems (maybe they NEEDED to sell a book with 500+ pages to justify the effort) - but if you're a Pathfinder fan looking for a (somewhat) simpler game, I think you might enjoy checking it out.

Dark Souls Weapons in D&D 5e (and some random thoughts)

Dark Souls has some amazing, flavorful weapons, but it is hard to choose the right one, since it depends so much of your "build".

D&D 5e is way simpler in that aspect: if you're a halfling, you wouldn't want to use heavy weapons in most circumstances, which is pretty intuitive. Of course, 5e is far from balanced: for example, there is no reason to use a trident over a spear, RAW. Unless you find a magic trident, of course.

Dark Souls also has one interesting aspect that is lacking in D&D: although some weapons are better for high Strength characters while other favor high Dexterity characters, there is little reason to have both high Strength AND high Dexterity... Which makes little sense in the real world, as most martial arts obviously use both. Not that Dark Souls is particularly "realistic" in that regard, mind you.

Another cool thing that 5e is missing is scaling weapons. Sure, they aren't as necessary as in 4e, but it can be fun to see a PC carry a sword for several levels and discover new aspects from time to time. On the other hand, merely going from +2 to +3 is a bit bland and feels a bit unearned. 

Combine these two problems creates an interesting solution: weapons that scale with abilities.

I can see at least a few advantages to such idea:

- Make abilities more useful, less "dump stats".

- As a consequence, it presentes an alternative to feats if you aren't using them (a fighter with GWF gains a significant boost, for example). 

- Warriors gain benefits form being both strong AND dexterous, like in real life.

- "Unlocking" new aspects of the weapon is cool and feels earned.

- The PCs gain a deeper bond with weapons that they have for a long time, and feel more special for using them ("most fighters cannot wield the power of the demon-sword"!).

- It also allows PCs to find weapons they cannot wield, giving them a sense of progression when they do.

- It makes spellcasters using weapons a bit more viable in some cases (sorceres and warlocks come to mind).

- You can use interesting "combos", boosting one ability with potions or spells to make better use of your weapons.

- You can use it to create some types of weapons 5e is missing (the main gauche, oversized weapons, the str-based longbow, the finesse great-sword or spear, etc.). Although this is probably left to a different post...

Let us try some examples.

BTW, most of these weapons should be at least very rare and require attunement.

Arstor's Spear

This spear has the finesse trait. If both your Strength and your Dexterity are 13 or greater, you gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is raised to +2 of both are 15 or greater, and +3 if both are 17 or greater. Whenever you slay a creature with this weapon, you gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you dealt to it.

Notes: if you think the requirements are too high, try some variant such as the sum of Strength and Dexterity, or the sum of one of those ability scores with the modifier of the second ability. In fact, I'm somewhat tempted to remake the whole combat system based on this idea.

Black Knight Greatsword

This massive greatsword weights 18 pounds and requires Strength 15 to use effectively. It's base damage is 2d8. You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. This bonus is raised to +2 if your your Strength is 17 or greater, and +3 if  are 19 or greater.

When you hit a demon with this weapon, it takes an additional 1d6 damage of the weapon’s type. This additional damage is 2d6 if your your Strength is 17 or greater, and 3d6 if  are 19 or greater.

Notes: "double dipping" on Strength might look overpowered, but remember, this is a magic weapon, and if you're enforcing encumbrance it has at least one balancing factor. Besides, huge weapons are cool.

Channeler's Trident

This trident has the finesse trait. While attuned, you can use your Intelligence ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon's damage die becomes a d8 (d10 if used with two hands). You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon if your Dexterity is 13 or greater.

Notes: yeah, it's basically Shillelagh with a twist. For the Dark Souls fans: yes, I would DEFINITELY add a "little dance" special power to boost your allies.

Okay, now let us see one example I got from Braggadouchio, on Reddit  (source):

Lifehunt Scythe

Weapon (Scythe), rare (requires

attunement)

You gain a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls

made with this magic weapon. In addition, while you

are attuned to this weapon, when you hit a target, you

can force the target to make a Constitution saving 

throw equal to 8 + your Proficiency bonus + your 

Charisma modifier. On a failed save, the target's 

maximum hit points are reduced by the amount of 

damage you dealt with your attack.

Once you use this feature 3 times, you cannot use it

again until you finish a short or long rest.

Notes: I'm not the author, follow the link above for more cool stuff. One interesting aspect here is that you can use you Charisma not to attack or damage, but to make the saving throws harder. Anyone can use this, but a Charisma character does it better.

Other ideas and variations:

In  Dark Souls, you can use special materials and monster parts to upgrade your weapons. It is a good alternative to weapons that scale with level.

Likewise, saying "you cannot use the troll's cool hammer because it requires Strength 17" is way better than saying "you cannot use the troll's cool hammer because it can only be used by trolls".

Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom have enough uses already; you don't need too many weapons that scale with them.

Magic weapons can give you proficiency even if you're not proficient, provided you have "Intelligence 15", for example. It's cool to have a wizard that can use no swords other than his special sword.

It might be a good idea to add a new weapon trait such as "Secondary ability: Intelligence", meaning you could add half your Intelligence to damage. Probably too fiddly...

Dark Souls weapons may break or lose some power if you use them for too long; breakage in D&D might make things too fiddly, but some "short rest" or "long rest" powers might do the trick.

Encumbrance is an important aspect of Dark Souls; huge, heavy weapons would be a cool addition to D&D, SPECIALLY if you give a little boost to unencumbered characters. SAy, +1 AC if you're carrying less than half your encumbrance.

In conclusion...

"Dark Souls style" weapons can add some variety and complexity to your D&D games. This stuff is really easy to do; you can just pick the weapons you like in some Dark Souls wiki and adapt it to D&D.

UPDATE: I released a book (5e Manual of Arms: Weapons) that deals with similar issues. See below!

---

To support this blog, buy my books on DTRPG! Try my 5e Manual of Arms: Weapons or any of my books. If you prefer comic books, check The Displaced series. Many titles are free!

Alternatively, click here or on the DriveThruRPG banner on the right. Any shopping you do through this link - even form other authors - helps us!

In addition, there are many other ways to support this blog! Share and recommend it, leave comments, etc. 


Thank you all for your audience and support!