![]() ![]() Two-handed by itself is pretty much a sheer disadvantage, as the main builds that work with two-handed weapons also require the heavy property, which is separate from it.Īs for the rapier-this is, in part, tradition. Irrespective of that outlier, it's as effective as a strength based two-handed weapon with a property, like a Glaive I would say it's as valuable as reach. The main gripe is not balance per say-there is nothing unbalanced about a finesse two-handed weapon unless you let rogues re-roll their sneak attack dice with two-handed fighting style. The two-handed finesse weapon is something that has been dealt with in other content-Eberron in particular has double scimitars, which can be made finesse with a feat and have other properties. So I worked something out similar a while back.But first, your questions! As for two-handed? Yes, Finesse weapons lack that altogether, but on the other hand, with the exception of a few thrown weapons, which are relatively short-ranged, Dexterity dominates in the ranged weapon department. Bards, Fighters, Rogues, maybe even some Paladin, could do well with that extra bit of damage. Rapiers are probably at a d8 to make make finesse characters feel they can still do a decent amount of weapon damage in melee. The only reason I see the Scimitar being a finesse weapon is most likely due (in no small part,) to a certain ranger of the drow persuasion. In 5e standards, they are small enough to reasonably be used in both hands to allow two-weapon fighting.įinesse weapons, Rapiers and Daggers, for example, are weapons that reward precision as much as brute force, and with the exception of the Scimitar and the Whip, they are all Piercing weapons. ![]() "Light" weapons, which includes things like the Handaxe, the Light Hammer and Shortsword, are generally smaller weapons. Just some stuff I've been pushing around, thanks for any thoughts. Thoughts? Is it unreasonable to allow for finesse on two handed or reach weapons? My google search resulted in a lot of folks with very strong opinions against allowing finesse on two-handed, but in my opinion were fairly unfounded with their concerns. It seems to me like there should be, makes sense thematically, so I'm guessing the main reason is for balance. I'm not really sure why it got bumped up to 1d8.Īny reasons other than those above not to lump the light and finesse properties together into a single property that does both?Īdditionally, WotC decided not to have any two-handed or reach finesse weapons (again excluding the whip). It seems to me like it would be more appropriately balanced against the other weapons if it was light, finesse, and 1d6 damage. The whip is somewhat of a special case weapon, so my main gripe is with the rapier. Two weapons are finesse but not light, Rapier and Whip. The sickle sticks out to me as something that should have had finesse, which I believe is the only non-bludgeoning light weapon without it. Google results in fairly varied opinions on the subject. Game balance-wise, I don't really see an issue with it, but thematically it does't make as much sense. ![]() So first question is, should there be? Initially, I would've said yes, but after thinking about it more, I'm not so sure. In fact, there are no bludgeoning finesse weapons. There are several weapons that are light but not finesse, mostly bludgeoning weapons. I'm not claiming that the WotC tables are perfectly balanced, but I'm looking for a baseline to work off of, and I'm curious to see if people agree with the decisions WotC made. My initial gut feeling was to lump them together into one single property, but after reviewing the WotC weapons, that is definitely not how they chose to do it. One thing that is tripping me up though are the Finesse and Light weapon properties. I'm sure this has been done before, but I've been having fun with it more as a thought experiment than anything else. I've been doing a little reverse engineering of the base weapon tables as provided by WotC to try to come up with a set of rules/guidelines for creating new basic weapons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |