Apparently an advantage of high Str is that is can negate the advantage of heavy armor so high Str characters can catch up with the dex monkeys in AC that way.

Quote from: Marleycat;757818What you and everyone seems to be forgetting is setting and which options ARE actually available... too much white room stuff is coloring your stance. Of course 1 handed you use it like a spear! Or like a teacher's ruler to rap them upside the noggin to wake them up or back them off for your real action. Swift spell anyone? Think magical staves and multiclassing or subclasses and that it's all optional but needs to be there AS AN OPTION...it's really fun.

I have no idea what exactly you are saying here.  I didn't and don't have a problem with the staff, I was just noting an explanation for a previous poster who questioned it's viability one-handed.  And I was in fact noting more options for creative use.  Such as sharpening it and that the staff is more or less the pole part of polearm, which includes spears (though it's fine if the game system might drawing hard divisions in that fuzzy continuum).

The only real problem I actually have is that they have weapons that are blatantly worse than others and/or inconsistent without any corresponding reason (at least on the page).  Even the least char-op player might look at that table and think "Why exactly am I going to carry around a 10 pound weapon that has the exactly same effect as a 4 pound one that is more versatile" unless their concept is quite specific.

There is no white room coloring my stance, I'm basing my stance on experience with actual (albeit padded and built for safety) weapons I have actually fought against others with (often in armor and with a shield).  I am also basing it on 30+ years of GMing experience that says players avoid shit gear when there is a better alternative.

Quote from: Marleycat;757820Better yet a Paladin of some kind or multiclass Bard/Paladin!!!!!

The... Balladin... :cool:

Quote from: Scott Anderson;757819Still hoping shield-and-pike is viable finally.

It's not really a viable loadout in reality or history unless you are in a formation.  A "medium" spear and shield being viable would make me happy too though.

one handed staff techniques - http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DU5QmrllB7cQ&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=1IyaU_6wDo_78QXwqYHQDQ&ved=0CBQQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNF6xBbogQlB9sfVPZEJDebdeIX-VQ

My favourite staff technique is one handed where you rest the short end under your armpit and extend the staff in a wide arc from your opposing foot out and then flip it round and back round your body picking it up with the other hand as it rotates, if it fails to connect of course.

the staff is known as the king of weapons for a reason - http://www.quarterstaff.org

You would hope they have an optional rule that differentiates damage type against armour type. Not as poorly presented as the weapon vs armour table but the same gist. This is where weapons like the club (baseball bat) and quarter staff get seen off because they are awesome vs lightly armoured foes but drop in effectiveness massively vs heavy armour. A quarter staff will rattle a guy in plate but its very unliekly to cuase any permanent damage.

As for Finese dealing damage we need to stop thinking game balance and start thinking about actual use. If you can hit accurately you can deal more damage. You can basically target more vulnerable areas. However there needs to be a skill element to this and again armour matters. A skilled double knife user should be devastating up close against lightly armoured foes but exposed at reach versus a guy with a sword and feeble versus a guy in heavy armour.
there should eb optional rules to allow DMs to add these sorts of detail.
I would use disadvantage/advantage. So knife versus sword... ont eh attack on first round knife gets dis and sword gets ad. For damage against heavy armour a knife gets disad or maybe even doubel disad....

Quote from: Brander;757829I have no idea what exactly you are saying here.  I didn't and don't have a problem with the staff, I was just noting an explanation for a previous poster who questioned it's viability one-handed.  And I was in fact noting more options for creative use.  Such as sharpening it and that the staff is more or less the pole part of polearm, which includes spears (though it's fine if the game system might drawing hard divisions in that fuzzy continuum).

The only real problem I actually have is that they have weapons that are blatantly worse than others and/or inconsistent without any corresponding reason (at least on the page).  Even the least char-op player might look at that table and think "Why exactly am I going to carry around a 10 pound weapon that has the exactly same effect as a 4 pound one that is more versatile" unless their concept is quite specific.

There is no white room coloring my stance, I'm basing my stance on experience with actual (albeit padded and built for safety) weapons I have actually fought against others with (often in armor and with a shield).  I am also basing it on 30+ years of GMing experience that says players avoid shit gear when there is a better alternative.

I build to concept not Charop sorry for picking on you. It's just a mentality I can't fully comprehend. I'm there to play, have fun not win DnD.

Quote from: Omega;757830The... Balladin... :cool:

It's like Bollywood.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757833...
You would hope they have an optional rule that differentiates damage type against armour type. Not as poorly presented as the weapon vs armour table but the same gist. This is where weapons like the club (baseball bat) and quarter staff get seen off because they are awesome vs lightly armoured foes but drop in effectiveness massively vs heavy armour. A quarter staff will rattle a guy in plate but its very unliekly to cuase any permanent damage.

It's why I'm a huge fan of armor reducing damage rather than making it hard to get hurt, but that doesn't really work well with the way DnD has tended to have escalating damage as the levels get higher.  It would make armor less and less useful as levels increased.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757833As for Finese dealing damage we need to stop thinking game balance and start thinking about actual use. If you can hit accurately you can deal more damage. You can basically target more vulnerable areas. However there needs to be a skill element to this and again armour matters. A skilled double knife user should be devastating up close against lightly armoured foes but exposed at reach versus a guy with a sword and feeble versus a guy in heavy armour. ...

One of the ways to dispatch a person in heavy armor is to grapple him and stick a knife/dagger in the groin, pits, or eye-slits.  But yes, it's the getting close part that can be hard since they might first poke at you with a spear, then swing their sword or shield* at you before you can even attempt to poke them in the soft bits.


*Weapon and shield often IS two-weapon fighting, the shield is very much an aggressive weapon in many cases.  This vid shows a fair bit of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
"Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha"

strength suddenly becomes very important when DMs enforce carrying capacity ;-). No one likes leaving a bunch of treasure behind

Quote from: Sacrosanct;757840strength suddenly becomes very important when DMs enforce carrying capacity ;-). No one likes leaving a bunch of treasure behind

Well duh, why do you think I mentioned white rooming? We aren't playing 0e and Sam the fighter with his 27 no name NPC redshirts here.

I really like the idea of versatile: letting people use a sword one or two handed without some fucking exotic weapon proficiency for bastard-swords.

Unless they still do have exotic weapons (I see no chain weapons or magical "superior" blades of the East LOL).

Either way I'm eager to see more!

Given that the weapons as statted vary a lot in effectiveness, and appear to have been statted for simulation rather than for 4e-style balance, it's fair to look at that variance. The statting of the staff is stupid; a staff is a pole arm; fundamentally it's just a spear without a point on the end. It can be used one-handed, but it shouldn't be doing more damage than a one-handed club.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757833one handed staff techniques - http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DU5QmrllB7cQ&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=1IyaU_6wDo_78QXwqYHQDQ&ved=0CBQQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNF6xBbogQlB9sfVPZEJDebdeIX-VQ

My favourite staff technique is one handed where you rest the short end under your armpit and extend the staff in a wide arc from your opposing foot out and then flip it round and back round your body picking it up with the other hand as it rotates, if it fails to connect of course.

the staff is known as the king of weapons for a reason - http://www.quarterstaff.org

You would hope they have an optional rule that differentiates damage type against armour type. Not as poorly presented as the weapon vs armour table but the same gist. This is where weapons like the club (baseball bat) and quarter staff get seen off because they are awesome vs lightly armoured foes but drop in effectiveness massively vs heavy armour. A quarter staff will rattle a guy in plate but its very unliekly to cuase any permanent damage.

As for Finese dealing damage we need to stop thinking game balance and start thinking about actual use. If you can hit accurately you can deal more damage. You can basically target more vulnerable areas. However there needs to be a skill element to this and again armour matters. A skilled double knife user should be devastating up close against lightly armoured foes but exposed at reach versus a guy with a sword and feeble versus a guy in heavy armour.
there should eb optional rules to allow DMs to add these sorts of detail.
I would use disadvantage/advantage. So knife versus sword... ont eh attack on first round knife gets dis and sword gets ad. For damage against heavy armour a knife gets disad or maybe even doubel disad....

The way you're describing finesse here, I am wondering if maybe it shouldn't be INT-based. Choosing vulnerable locations could be a matter of analytic, rather than just deftness.  Again, my main problem with finesse isn't the idea. It's the fact that DEX already has so much utility over other stats. If finesse was shifted to INT, then INT would gain a combat use, and DEX would balance out a bit more (saves, inish and AC).

Quote from: Bill;757680Unarmed strike should probably be 'finesse' so you can use either str or dex.

But yea, without a high stat and any class ability that might add damage, being unarmed is rough.

Then again, that's why we love our weapons.

Any monks in 5E?

I made a mistake on the Monk AC, Bill. It's DEX+WIS, rather than DEX+CON.  Apologies.

In my Forgotten Realms game, Mr. Do'Urden is going to ditch the dual blades and take up a quarterstaff and shield. Talk about bad ass.