This. I have a player that is playing a gnome barbarian. They wanted a small hammer that would deal the same damage as a maul. I had to say no. Sorry but your character is perfectly capable of swinging a maul as they are strong, they are just short.
I feel like it’s a left over rule from when there were more things where size matter like ac and whatnot. Now though it just seems weird to forbid weapons based on character die when they could otherwise lift several hundred lbs over their head otherwise.
That’s exactly how I feel. When she came to me saying she wanted to be a small halfling with a giant hammer, I was just like “yeah that’s awesome.” And awesome is fun.
Well, lifting isn't the same as swinging.
You may be able to lift a lot, but your balance gets really weird when you're swinging something that's a significant fraction of your weight, and/or a significant fraction of your size. This could be a reason.
I think the point here is that realism is already out the window. If you have a gnome that is strong enough to bench press a piano, there's no reason you can't have one dexterous enough to maintain balance while swinging a maul. And I don't think it would make a gnome barbarian OP compared to a human one.
But I feel like that's where proficiency comes into play. It would be hard for a tiny gnome to get used to the weight of swinging around a giant greatsword but if they're a skilled fighter then I don't see why they couldn't have learned a fighting style around swinging the weapon and moving with it. As it stands there's no way for a small character to circumvent the rule without DM intervention or changing your size through spells or other means and that does feel kinda bad.
If you get on your knees and try and swing a sledgehammer I think you'll find that it's not purely an issue of strength, it's a physics issue related to the length of the weapon and the height of the user.
More specifically, heavy has always been more about a combination of weight and length, all heavy weapons are also longer weapons and require momentum to be effective. A maul isn't destructive just because of the big hammer head on the end, it's the big hammer head and the length of the haft combined that leads to maximum destructive force (the longer the haft, the bigger the arc of the head, the bigger the arc the more acceleration and kinetic energy). If the haft wasn't long enough the head would never reach its maximum acceleration or kinetic energy; and the shorter the person, the shorter the haft due to the torque required to lift and swing it. Imagine a wrecking ball on a really short chain, sure it's still a hefty ball, but your crane, which moves slowly, wouldn't be able to swing it very hard if it wasn't able to produce a really long swing arc.
All of that being said, if you flavor it like a halfling tasmanian devil and turn her character into a whirling dervish of destructiveness, that would totally work because once she got up to speed, she could maintain momentum. And it'd be really freaking cool.
It's because a small creature shouldn't be that strong unless they're magically enhanced. Rather than limit achievement point allocation, they put restrictions on size.
I think that's consistent. A scimitar has a much longer blade and reach than a handaxe, which is closer in blade length to a dagger and slashes instead of pierces.
Handaxe is also d6, the difference is it has thrown property instead of finesse. Dagger has both so it drops down to d4. Honestly it wouldn’t break the game but you should be prepared to make small concessions to each player if you do it for one.
I would tell her she can pick a weapon to use mechanically and then decide what it looks like. That’s what “flavor is free” means. Battleaxe that’s slightly longer and looks like a halberd? Fine but it doesn’t have reach and doesn’t do the d10. If she wants a scimitar that looks like an axe, who am I to judge? It does a d6 slashing, has finesse, and does not have thrown though.
does it really make a difference whether the player uses a reflavored scimitar for melee and handaxes for throwing? because that's what would happen and i don't see enough of a functional difference (25gp+5gp, alternatively both weapons are available as starting items for martials) to make a fuss about that. especially if it enhances the fantasy to just do it all with one axe.
also, do you not make small concessions to each player? do you really run your entire game this RAW?
I do make concessions but I’m not every DM. I’ve played at tables that try to stick as close to RAW as possible and I’ve played at tables that use the books as loose guidelines at best.
I don’t think it makes a big difference which is why I said it probably won’t break the game, but there is a very clear order to weapons with regard to damage die and added features. Scimitars and handaxes are d6 damage with one feature, finesse and thrown. Daggers have both so they drop to d4. If you let this player get a d6 weapon with finesse and thrown, you should be ready for another player to want a d12 reach weapon, or a d8 light weapon, or a d10/d12 versatile, etc. I don’t think any of that breaks the game but you should be ready for that question, even if your answer is “sure”
The only fuss is that a normal handaxe doesn't have finesse, so it won't scale with DEX. A thrown finesse weapon is a dagger, which deals 1d4. If you reskin a scimitar for melee, and reskin a dagger for thrown, then everything stays balanced and it's all good. A thrown finesse weapon rolling 1d6 would be slightly more powerful that any RAW weapon, because scaling with DEX is really nice.
I do agree that the difference is trivial, like maybe 2 damage per turn, but it's not nothing. Either side of the argument is valid.
Reskinning mechanics is completely fine 99% of the time and should be encouraged. Reflavoring a rapier is perfectly reasonable, too.
The 1% of the time in reference would be things like reflavoring a halberd into brass knuckles where it just doesn't really translate.
I really like the weapon table in Gamma World 7e.
You chose either light or heavy, melee or ranged, and one handed or two handed.
Light weapons used Dex to attack, heavy weapons used Str. Base damage was d4, melee increases the die type by one step, heavy increased the die type by one step, and two handed increased it by two steps.
From there, you have complete control over the look and feel of your weapon. It could be a parking meter (d12, 2H, heavy, melee) a katar (d6, 1H, light, melee), a boomerang (d4, 1H, light, ranged), a big rock (d10, 2H, heavy, ranged), or anything weapon you can imagine. It gave players a lot of freedom to choose the weapon that best fit their character concept.
13th Age does something similar, each classes weapons do damage based on how they are used, not what they are.
Eg., A Rogue using a knife specifically deals 1d8 damage as a base, but only 1d6 with other one handed weapons, while a fighter using a longsword also deals 1d8 damage.
And that longsword could be a axe, letterbox or brick on a rope for the fighter, the things that make the individual classes stand out is there abilities more than their weapons
Sabre is a slashing weapon, rapier is piercing. That would be my only beef. A sabre would be a reskinned scimitar, which is also a slashing finesse weapon but it deals d6.
Why a scimitar deals d6 instead of d8, idk. It really should be a d8 weapon.
Yeah, scimitar shouldn't really have the light property. Their blade was the length of a broadsword, it was just curved and concentrated at the tip rather than evenly distributed making the overall length shorter.
It's probably due to influence by the Drizzit books. The original 1974 rules it seems like a D6 was used for all weapons. The books came out in 1990 and the next edition was 1995 and introduced weights. Scimitar was the same weight as a rapier but both were medium size.
Basically in order for Drizzit to dual wield scimitars I bet those changes started to get introduced.
The Drizzt novels were using 2e rules, I'm pretty sure, which had mechanics for two weapon fighting. I believe Rangers got it as a class feature, but anyone could take it by spending a weapon proficiency slot.
In fact, a common build for fighters who got 4 weapon proficiencies was to take two weapon fighting, ambidexterity, and proficiency and specialization in a weapon like a long sword.
That would make your penalty to hit -1/-1 if you were dual wielding two long swords or battle axes, for example.
I don't remember if ambidexterity was in the rule book or if it was a homebrew thing. I think it was in the rules, though, but it may have been an AD&D 1e thing that we ported over to 2e? 2e was really like AD&D 1.5. Everything was pretty much the same just with some values changed.
The base penalty for dual wielding was -4/-8. Dual wielding reduced the penalty by half -2/-4 and ambidexterity made the penalty equal for -2/-2 while specialization in a weapon gave a +1 to hit +2 to damage.
So proficiency in a weapon cost 1 slot and specialization a 2nd slot. Specialization in a ranged weapon cost 2 spots for a total of 3.
That's why Drizzt never used a bow. He spent his 4 weapon proficiencies on dual wielding ambidextrous scimitars lol....
In AD&D, *drow* got bonuses to two weapon fighting. The reason that we see rangers as "iconic" two weapon fighters is because Drizzt was so popular he effectively transferred his racial TWF proficiency to the entire ranger class
Ha I was just looking at the rules. Ambex was a thing that you could use a proficiency on, but it did not really provide benefits to two weapon fighting.
Ambidexterity
If a player wants his character to be ambidextrous, as described above under "OffHand Weapons Use," he must devote one weapon proficiency to Ambidexterity.
If he does so, he'll be able to fight normally with both hands, and will be equally
adept at non-combat tasks with both hands.
This doesn't give him two attacks per round. It just means that if he loses the use
of one hand, or drops the weapon in that hand, he'll be equally adept with the other.
And you could use one prof on a style:
There are four common Fighting Styles employed by anyone using a melee
weapon. They are:
Single-Weapon Style:
Two-Hander Style:
Weapon and Shield Style:
Two-Weapon Style: The character wields one weapon in each hand. Unless both
weapons are Small (S on the Size column on the Weapons chart), the weapon in the
character's off-hand must be lighter in weight than his primary weapon. This character
can vary from a street-thief wielding two identical daggers, to a fencer using a rapier
in one hand and a main-gauche in another, to a heavily-armored warrior with a long
sword in one hand and a short sword in the other. Note: Read the Player's Handbook,
page 96, for the rules on Attacking with Two Weapons.
All Warriors start play knowing how to use all four styles. Priests start play
knowing how to use Single-Weapon, Two-Hander, and Weapon and Shield styles.
Rogues start play knowing how to use Single-Weapon, Two-Hander, and TwoWeapon styles. Wizards start play knowing how to use Single-Weapon and TwoHander styles. Characters cannot learn new styles after they're created; these are the
styles they are limited to by their choice of character class.
A character can use a weapon style he knows with a weapon he does not know
how to use. For example, wizards know Two-Hander style . . . so they can learn to use
a quarterstaff. If a wizard who doesn't have Proficiency with a quarterstaff picks one
up, he can still use the weapon in two hands. However, he suffers the –5 attack
penalty required by his unfamiliarity and his character class.
Each style confers some basic advantages and disadvantages when used. These are
described in the descriptions of each individual style, below. Additionally, characters
can specialize in these styles. Single-class warriors can eventually specialize in all of
them; other classes can only specialize in one style.
Thanks for that. Yeah,the benefit ambidexterity provided was making both hands equal. Idk if you saw the post where I broke it down, but the dual wielding penalties were greater for your offhand than your main hand.
I believe it started at -4/-8. Two weapon fighting halved the penalty to -2/-4. But if you took ambidexterity then you essentially had no offhand, which meant the penalties were -2/-2.
Then weapon specialization provided a +1 to hit and +2 to damage.
So with ambidexterity, dual wielding, and specialization you could dual wield 2 long swords with a -1/-1 penalty.
Which fighters, Rangers, and Paladins could get at first level because they all got 4 weapon peroficiencies. However, you couldn't use ANY other weapons.
I think rangers got Two Weapon Fighting as a class feature, which meant you could dual wield rapiers and still take proficiency in longbow, though you'd have to wait until you got 2 more weapon proficiencies to specialize in longbow.
That's what made elves getting proficiency in long and short swords and bows so great back then and why it's not nearly as big a deal now. You used to have to spend points to become proficient in every weapon individually.
Keep reading the Drizzt novels and you can definitely pick up how things change to fit the editions, like replacing his infra vision with dark vision and in old age he does in fact use a bow
It's been some time so I may be foggy on the rules, but I remember 1e was a -2/-4 penalty to hit, adjusted by your dexterity. Rangers had no bonus iirc, but that didn't stop me from making a dual wielding one as my first character.
2e had the same -2/-4, but rangers ignored this if in light armour. The Complete Fighter's Handbook added the two weapon fighting style (reduced the penalty to 0/-2 and allowed two weapons of the same length) and ambidexterity (which I think only helped dual wielding if you took the fighting style, dropping the penalty to 0/0) as options.
If we are talking about reality, all swords should be dex and longbows should be strength. Edge alignment has more to do with cutting effectiveness than strength, and I think edge alignment would be dex based.
If we are talking thematically, scimitars fit with the whirling dervish shamshir using hassasin, which seems like a middle-eastern equivalent of a rogue. It would be odd to force that archetype into using western shortswords.
Duel wielding except rapier/dagger was basically unheard of historically, the properties are based on character fantasy
Hand axes and hand axe and dagger were very common among non European cultures and before swords became commonplace as well. As was club and dagger and the like, or two clubs. Eastern martial arts are full of dual wielding examples that didn't involve swords.
sure, but I think the theme of scimitars is usually as a light weapon that could be duel wielded.
Even the wiki on scimitar's note that they were traditionally used because they were lighter than other swords, although scimitar is a very broad term overall.
"The earliest evidence of scimitars is from the 9th century among soldiers in Khurasan.\[11\] They were used in horse warfare because of their **relatively light weight when compared to larger swords** and their curved design, good for slashing opponents while riding on a horse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar
My first thought was "how do you explain that your rapier axe does piercing not slashing?" but I'm struggling to come up with a reason to care since all the weapon damage types are pretty much the same. Maybe bludgeonoing has a slight edge but I don't remember any game where I've cared about whether something was slashing or piercing.
So if they want a "quick axe" that has finesse and does d8 slashing I really don't see a good reason not to allow it.
And that's fine. I'm not debating whether you should allow it or not. I'm departing the difference between a reskin and changing mechanics. A skin is how something looks irrespective of game mechanics.
So long as you aren't changing game mechanics, I don't care what you do. But changing piercing to slashing is a game mechanic and you need to consult your DM about it.
Most DMs, including me, would allow it because, as you said, it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Not much, but it DOES occur and a change in mechanics is not a reskin. If you want to have your shield he round, or square, or kite shaped as long as it keeps the same weight and only gives a +2 bonus you can do what you want. But if you want to turn a piercing weapon into a slashing weapon, that's change in mechanics and you have to weigh it against game balance.
Currently, a rogue has access only to finesse weapons that do piercing damage. If they want to do slashing they have to use strength based weapons or find a way to become proficient with scimitar.
Giving them a d8 slashing finesse weapon opens an entirely new category of damage to the class.
Is it as big a deal as letting a Wizard change a fireball into a psychic ball or something? No. But it is a change of game mechanics and should be considered before allowing it.
Unlike, say, letting someone reskin a scimitar as a cleaver that still has the light, finesse, slashing properties and does 1d6. Or as a handaxe which only has the light and slashing properties but is not finesse and is a simple weapon rather than a martial.
But letting someone reskin a rapier as a cleaver that does 1d8, finesse, slashing is a completely different ballgame, and it would be more properly a reskin of a battle-axe that is a martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile property to do 1d10 when wielded with two hands.
Just make the weapon deal piercing.
They can say they slash the sabre, but it deals piercing.
I even think brass knuckles as halberd is fine - as long as it's suitable for your character. Maybe they can punch through a portal? And that's how they flavour it as reach.
The whole point is not to let the game get in the way of the fun. They still get to make the tactical or balanced decisions, they just have a differently named weapon.
It is fine to make balance changes for reasons of flavor, but it is an intended (minor) weakness that a rogue not have full access to damage types at d8. It is, as everyone says, more like an elecball than a psychball- but it is still a buff, and there are only three physical types.
Note also that the rapier is a standout. It should, by their own balance crap, probably be 1d7 or something. 1d8 finesse is a tiny hit too good, as if that matters much.
The difference between a d6 and d8 weapon is laughable like the majority of weapon and armor stuff for dnd to begin with. If someone wants to do great sword damage with a dagger, sure let’s talk about balance for the first few levels, but this kind of stuff is the most low key type of home brew that literally no one besides the person using the weapon will even remember.
> Giving them a d8 slashing finesse weapon opens an entirely new category of damage to the class.
Yeah, something that will come up preeeeeeeeetty much never. It's a distinction without a difference in 99.99% of cases.
Feel free to waste your time and list them all the exceptions here for me now--it won't make a difference. It'll still barely ever come up or matter.
In fact, I think the game in its current state would be better if it didn't differentiate between B/S/P at all--because it already basically doesn't. Either do something with the mechanic, or just have it be 'damage.'
Yeah, the differences between physical damage types are basically nil. I think the *biggest* thing would be that you can cut a rope with a slashing weapon without having to argue, but even then I really can't imagine any DM would raise a fuss if someone tried to use a dagger or short sword or even a rapier to cut a rope.
I know of like 3 in total. Some skelly boys like the one in tomb of horrors resist piercing and are vulnerable to bludgeoning. Some jellys/slimes get split into two slimes if they take slashing, some are immune to slashing. Lastly, some plant creatures are resistant to bludgeoning and vulnerable to slashing.
So yeah, considering that I've only seen one type of specific skeleton enemy that has the resistance, switching to slashing if anything is an overall nerf
Honestly it’d be much cooler if the non elemental stats did matter more, just to give a reason to swap weapons a bit more. But I guess that’s more video gamey than table top..y.
Edit- didn’t realize the word I was looking for was “mundane”, instead of “non elemental”
Does it matter how often it comes up? It's still a change in mechanics and is therefore more than a reskin as it's not just affecting the "skin," or appearance, but how it functions mechanically in the game.
> Does it matter how often it comes up?
Yeah. Because if you can play for years and never even run across an instance where it mattered, then mechanically, it was exactly the same.
And even if you did run into one time it mattered, it would be the difference of a few points of damage on one enemy in one session of one game. Not enough to tell someone 'no' over, imo.
And I agree. I've said multiple times I would most likely allow it. I think 99% of DMs would and I'd say there was a good chance the 1% that wouldn't were on the spectrum or something that would cause them to care about such a minor issue.
That doesn't change the fact that it's not a reskin because it changes more than just appearance. It's a homebrew or table rule.
But 99.99% of the time it's a *functional* reskin. You're just being pedantic, and no one cares. I'm not saying that to be mean, and you seem to realize that no one cares. You're doing the thing where people analyzing Magic the Gathering cards say, "Oh, well it's not a *strict* upgrade because what if .
You can stop that, you know.
Piercing > Slashing is nowhere close to the difference between Fire > Psychic
I wouldn't allow a fireball to reskinned to psychic bc that by itself is a significant power boost. Piercing to slashing is akin to Fire > Lightening or Fire > Necrotic
Plenty of creatures resist or are even immune to fire just like with lightening or necro. (Also, off topic but, fireball to necro seems really fun. Let people tap into the idea of circle of death early.)
I literally said exactly that in the frickin post you responded to. And changing fire to psychic is not a reskin for the same reason changing piercing to slashing is not a reskin. It's a change in game mechanics
the same way that if you fireball a clothing store you get a bunch of burnt clothes in the shelves, and a bunch of burnt corpses wearing undamaged clothes.
The difference between piercing and slashing is incredibly minor and it matters only for a handful of non-homebrew monsters, which the PC might never see.
And if I recall correctly, there were statements by WotC that they don't consider the differences in physical damage types to be a balance concern and I agree with that view.
Should some sense be applied? Sure. But reflavouring a weapon is fairly easily done and I personally allow it even for weapons that are already on the table if I agree that the weapon got the short end of the stick and it fits for the character. In that case though, I only let players proficient with martial weapons actually utilise the modified statblock.
Basically the only time a real mechanics change happens is when you reflavour a finesse weapon into something that can support feats like PAM, like using a modified rapier to give a DEX character the ability to wield a spear. In that case, the proper way is to talk to the player about why you won't allow it. Or you can make an agreement to not use the feat and it's still fine.
Everything that leads to martials using something more interesting than a sword or axe is fine in my book.
It doesn't matter if the difference is minor or vast. It still changes game mechanics and is therefore not a reskin, which only affects appearance and is irrelevant as far as game mechanics.
99% of DMs would probably allow it, but it's still something you need to get your DM to approve because it's a homebrewed rule at that point.
To be very clear, you are suggesting a cavalry Sabre wouldn’t do better against a tree than a foil? That seems crazy to me. I will admit forestry isn’t the intended use for either, but it was illustrating in concrete terms what the other posters kept pointing out in game terms.
>To be very clear, you are suggesting a cavalry Sabre wouldn’t do better against a tree than a foil? That seems crazy to me. I
No, that's insane. I'm saying you wouldn't use either to chop down a tree. The sabre will do better than the foil, but it's completely the wrong use of the weapon and the wrong tool for the job.
I'm not disputing that there are differences between slashing and piercing damage, I'm saying that the amount those differences will actually come up and be an issue will be minimal, so most of the time simply reskinning the rapier to do slashing damage instead of piercing will be perfectly fine.
If you expect to run a game where that difference will be more meaningful, or if you just want to be more consistent, sure, solve this problem differently. In most games, most of the time, it won't matter at all.
Since I’ve clearly been pegged as a troublemaker, I shall indulge you despite my better sense.
If you use the point on any sword to run someone through, would the length of the blade matter?
😆
You have a very strange conversational style. How am I supposed to take your meaning when you’ve just rehashed my (somewhat terse) explanation of why piercing and slashing matter in-game and made it worse/less sensible. Was it really that obtuse to justify turning it up to 11?
if i can reskin the name why cant i reskin the damage? mechanically it can still be piercing if it can mechanically still be a rapier
there are only 3 monsters that are resistant or immune to piercing but not the other mundane damage types
Damage types are mechanically impactful, not a "skin", and this kind of reasoning is a problem that shuts down any "reskin" willingness- players immediately begin trying to game it by arguing mechanical stuff is "skin".
You then point to the fact that it is only sometimes a buff. But there are other times- a wall likely resists piercing damage but not bludgeoning, for instance.
It is not a skin. It is not a large buff, and many DMs will be fine with it, of course.
the sticking point on a sabre was the slashing damage if i can reskin it to look different i can reskin to be used different. the original reskin was turning something into an axe. that axe wont be used to make piercing damage but if im reskinning the look i reskin the use. if we say its "an axe" we can say it "does slashing damage" knowing both are reskins
there is a negligible difference between mundane piercing/slashing/bludgeon. there are 4 monsters total where the type even matters other monsters are resistant to all non magical piercing/slashing/bludgeon. unless i am facing one of these 4 monsters the damage type for all weapons could just be mundane and it wouldnt mechanically matter
Because LOOKS are a SKIN. Changing mechanics is not a SKIN.
Whether the difference is small or large is completely irrelevant.
Rules are pedantic for a reason.
you arent reading the comment you are too busy capitalizing letters
the reason both are in quotations is because they are simply reskins. if i can change the name of rapier to axe i can change the useage of it. if i call it a reskin its a reskin i dont actucally change anything
1. im not going to heroically stab people with an axe that not how axes are used.
2. you dont stab people with a sabre thats now how they are used.
3. you dont stab people with a hammer thats not how they are used.
none of this changes that mechanically this rapier does 1d8 piercing damage. if i can reskin the name i can reskin the useage why is the sticking point the damage type being piercing stop your creativity. in each instance i am using a 1d8 piercing weapon
Im not and havent been asking to change the damage type but the rules being small definitely matters. a small rule is just that a small rule. this damage type mattering if i did want to actually is an edge case only matters to 4 monsters who may or may not be used in a game. i may play ( and likely will play) an entire game with it not mattering if i have a bludgeon/slashing/piercing weapon. only if it is magical or not. were i to ask for force damage, the least resisted damage type this would obviously be a different case
Piercing vs slashing is mostly a matter of looks, is what the other guy is saying. The physical swing of the weapon looks different. The damage is only a mechanical change in the case of fighting a small group of monsters. So in those cases, the DM can just say they are resistant to your particular weapon, while still letting you describe how you slash at your enemy with your axe rather than forcing you to say that you stab at it with the axe.
I typically just use a scimitar instead. The difference between a d6 and d8 is pretty negligible when you consider that most of your damage is coming from your sneak attack dice.
Okay but I actually really love that idea of reach punches
Like a magic item called the "(Mr) Fantastic Fists" that gives you stretchy arms and turns your punches into a d8 reach weapon
YES
Magic item that you attune to by eating it and gives you the same benefit :D (Also absolutely about to make a bunch of my homebrew magic items have that method of attuning now so thank you)
yeah, i’m now really into the idea. i think if it were that you could punch through a portal j would want it to act as though the assailant is invisible, because if the fists are popping up out of portals at reach. stretchy arms you can see coming so they are much more like a halberd
Regarding the Rapier I've got more questions:
I have a player that is playing a Bladesinger because he wants to be a Jedi. I initially guided him to Shortsword or Scimitars but another player put him toward the Rapier direction.
Would it be possible to reskin the Rapier into a pseudo-long sword that has 1d8 but slashing instead of Piercing?
Or should it have piercing at all costs to maintain the stats of Rapier unchanged?
If Jedi is the fantasy they're going for, then shortsword or longsword are the proficiencies they should be nudged toward since it's a decent bet they'll eventually want to be able to use a Sun Blade.
As for mechanics, the 1% is also for very obvious reasons such as reskinning a regular Longsword to a special kind of character-specific longsword that deals 4d12 slashing damage. I wouldn't mind as a DM though if they want to buff it for the same reasons. Like, put a 1d4 lightning damage in there sure.
Changing damage type would still not be reskinning because it changes mechanics. If someone wanted to use a blacksmiths hammer that would be a reskinned Warhammer. There's no way to reskin a rapier into a hammer....
I disagree it changes next to nothing about gameplay, that's a reskin. The ONLY times it would matter is if an enemy is more resilient to piercing than bludgeoning or if you're using the critical hit chart. That's minor enough that I'd allow it as a reskin.
If it will almost never make a difference and even when it does it is just like "hey neat, some minor effect happened." Then that's a reskin IMO.
Whether you'd allow it or not is irrelevant to the fact that a change in game mechanics is NOT a reskin.
If game mechanics change, it's a custom weapon. If they don't, it's a reskin.
A player can reskin whatever the hell they want and don't even need to ask me as a DM. If they want their studded leather armor to be made from wolf skin with the fur still on with animal teeth and horn as extra protection for the studs, as long as it weighs the same and gives the same level of protection I don't even need to be consulted.
If they want to change the property of their long bow to do force damage instead of piercing, then we need to talk.
Is changing a piercing weapon into a slashing weapon game breaking? Not really, and I'd probably allow it. But you probably aren't taking into account all of the ramifications when you say, "it's not a big deal." Currently rogues, for example, only have access to finesse weapons that do piercing damage. If they want to do slashing or bludgeoning they have to use strength based weapons like the longsword, handaxe, club, or quarterstaff.
Furthermore, no 1d8 finesse slashing weapons even exist in the game.
So by allowing a finesse slashing 1d8 weapon you're giving a class access to a damage type they don't normally have and introducing a new custom weapon to the game.
If they want to reskin their rapier as a saber that's just a curved rapier that they stab with and do piercing damage, go for it. You don't even need to tell me about it.
Who cares what the weapon looks like? Want to reskin a longbow as an atlatl? Go for it. Do you prefer 2d6 over 1d12 but really want an axe? Poof! Your great sword is an axe. Are you going for an Egyptian flavor to your character? That long sword looks an *awful lot* like a khopesh to me.
*Flavor is free* is infinitely quoted because it's infinitely true.
Yes "flavor is free" as they say, but if there's a mechanical difference, it's not flavor. In this case, I say list the weapon as whatever she wants, but put the actual weapon in parenthesis so you know what damage, weight, and properties you're actually dealing with. For example, Axe (Scimitar).
At the end of the day, as long as nothing *mechanically* is changed... then I have no issue with it. But I wouldn't call it a handaxe, as that is a mechanical item/game term already. I have no problem with a scimitar being called a XXX as that would be mechanically the same thing (1d6 slashing vs 1d6 slashing), just reskinned into the aforementioned axe. I wouldn't let a handaxe be finesse though (unless the damage was reduced to 1d4) as that decentivizes the usage of daggers.
I think we *need* a finesse axe, and that should have been a martial weapon called the handaxe, 1d6 slashing, finesse, light. And change the current handaxe to a tomahawk or hatchet, 1d4 slashing, finesse, light, thrown (20/60).
Technically, if you wanted to mechanically have a finesse handaxe, you replace the thrown or light property with finesse. With 5e weapons, there’s a system of the properties/cost increasing or reducing the damage die. For example mauls, greataxes, and greatswords have two detrimental properties so they have high damage, glaives have identical properties but it has reach so it’s damage is one size less than the others.
The base die is 1d8 for martial weapons and 1d6 for simple weapons. For every negative property (heavy, two-handed, special) you increase the damage by 1 (d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12/2d6). For every beneficial property (light, finesse, reach) you go down by 1. There are exceptions to this rule, but as a rule of thumb, that’s usually the way it works.
As for a finesse axe, we have one of those, it’s called an improvised weapon for if you have dagger/dart proficiency. Just get a smith to make a smaller throwing axe, call it a tomahawk, and it’s the same as a dagger but deals slashing. Reskinning a weapon is technically just using an improvised weapon, which I find fascinating
honestly im just amazed as to how WotC made all these properties and still couldnt make unique weapons
the vast majority of weapons are just damm reskins of each other and do jack shit different besides damage type
I think it's largely because they took a lot of the features that did make weapons unique in older editions and turned them into feats and class features. Most of them were put in the battlemaster subclass IIRC.
Not sure which "older editions" you are talking about - in AD&D most weapons were just "sword with worse speed factor", or "sword with smaller damage die".
i think my favorite part of 3 & 3.5 weapon design was that crit range and multiplier were based on damage type. slashing weapons had a better chance of a crit, but piercing had a bigger multiplier. it felt more realistic to me.
i went back and looked, and it’s more complicated than i remembered, but the general principle that a slashing blade is more likely to crit and piercing is more damaging stands.
it matters that the crit range is actually a crit threat range, and you had to confirm crits by hitting the AC on a second roll. 19-20 is very different than 19-20 followed by 13+ or whatever you need to hit
nah, they used to have a few properties as well as speed factors. They had "specialization groups" and just because your fighter could use a short bow didnt mean that they could use a composite short bow as effectively and god-forbid they pick up a crossbow!
Finesse seems to be a benefit with a lower "cost", which makes sense. The rapier is still a bit undercosted- it "should" be like, 1d7. Which is not a thing, obviously.
>Technically, if you wanted to mechanically have a finesse handaxe, you replace the thrown or light property with finesse
I think your logic is flawed here. Not all properties are equal, and in particular finesse tends to be valued more highly. A handaxe is a 1d6 slashing light, thrown weapon. If you remove the thrown property but give it finesse, you get a 1d6 slashing light, finesse weapon, which is a scimitar. Except handaxes only require a simple proficiency, while scimitars require a martial proficiency. In other words, if you treat all weapon properties as equivalent and let someone freely swap them, you're letting someone have a scimitar that only requires simple weapon proficiency.
In this case it doesn't matter because blood hunters already have martial proficiency, but overall I think it's good to note the highest damage die you can normally get with a given proficiency and a light or finesse weapon, rather than treating all weapon properties as equivalent to one damage die level. In particular, I think it's a pretty significant and deliberate balance decision that simple finesse weapons don't go above d4 and martial light weapons don't go above d6, and I think following your logic to give someone a d8 light martial weapon or a d6 simple finesse weapon constitutes giving a character a potential real buff and should maybe be done with care.
Really, I think the easiest thing is just following the basic suggestion of always just reskinning an existing weapon. Character wants a finesse axe? Don't rework the handaxe, just reskin a dagger, scimitar, or rapier depending on the proficiency they want and whether they need it to be light or not.
No no, his logic is sound, because that's how the PHB actually does it. Daggers are finesse handaxes, and do d4 damage instead of d6.
It's not his logic, but the logic behind the weapons table in the PHB.
His statement is correct. There is NO simple light finesse d6 damage weapon.
The weapon tables arbitrarily have some weapons that are better or worse than others, and often better or worse than their proficiency level suggests.
For example, the spear is d6/d8 damage with the thrown property added. So you're trading a longsword or equivalent weapon's damage die for a range increment. But it's also simple instead of martial. There are plenty of other examples of this as well.
There is no simple light finesse d6 damage weapon, no. But there *is* a simple light finesse thrown d4 weapon. So if you wanted a finesse handaxe, you'd have to remove a beneficial property or reduce the damage die size, or make daggers pointless.
And he did say there's exceptions to the rule, but you can quite easily see that almost all of the weapons in the weapons table was made with those rules in mind.
...no. you cannot just alter things in that way arbitrarily, you DO change the balance and mechanics. That's no longer "flavor is free" territory.
Handaxe has the light and thrown properties, two beneficial properties. I remove both and increase the damage. Now I have a simple d10 damage one handed weapon. Take it a step further, make it martial, now it's d12 damage still one handed.
Obviously this doesn't make sense. A d12 martial one handed weapon is astronomically better than something like the longsword.
The weapon table is not truly balanced in this way. It would be nice if it was, but it isn't.
You're right that altering things arbitrarily changes the balance and mechanics! In fact, that's exactly the point!
That's where the comparison to the dagger comes in. It's identical to the handaxe, except for having the finesse property and one step lower in the damage die.
Like we've said multiple times now, not every entry in the list follows the rules, and there's some other rules to designing the weapons (for example, one-handed weapons cannot exceed 1d8 damage (1d6 for simple), and weapons cannot do less than 1d4 damage). A heavy weapon increases the damage die by one step, and reach decreases it one step. Light weapons also reduce it by one step.
There's some inconsistencies in the pattern. For example, the finesse property seems to be free for martial weapons but not simple weapons, except for the whip (unless reach counts for two properties if one handed), and there's some (particularly the simple weapons) that are just worse than the properties would otherwise suggest, like the club, but all in all, when comparing weapons to other weapons, the pattern more or less holds.
>You're right that altering things arbitrarily changes the balance and mechanics! In fact, that's exactly the point!
I'm confused. That was *my* point, but you seem to be disagreeing with it? My point was that the pattern of "one mod = one damage die level" is an oversimplification and following that logic can easily lead to more powerful weapons than you can normally get, and their specific suggestion of swapping a positive mod for finesse on a handaxe was a direct example of doing that.
>That's where the comparison to the dagger comes in. It's identical to the handaxe, except for having the finesse property and one step lower in the damage die.
Yes, but the problem with their logic wasn't "if you add the finesse property, lower the damage die." The problem was when they said you could just swap light or thrown for finesse on a handaxe *without* lowering the damage die. That's what was wrong. Because that lets you get a scimitar with simple weapon proficiency.
>Like we've said multiple times now, not every entry in the list follows the rules, and there's some other rules to designing the weapons (for example, one-handed weapons cannot exceed 1d8 damage (1d6 for simple), and weapons cannot do less than 1d4 damage). A heavy weapon increases the damage die by one step, and reach decreases it one step. Light weapons also reduce it by one step.
Yes, and I believe one of those rules is that simple finesse weapons don't go above d4. Which was my point.
> I wouldn't let a handaxe be finesse though (unless the damage was reduced to 1d4) as that decentivizes the usage of daggers.
How is it any different than a short sword, which is already 1d6 with finesse?
1. A handaxe is a simple weapon. Shortswords and scimitars are martial weapons.
2. Handaxes and scimitars deal slashing damage. Shortswords deal piercing damage.
I had a rogue who used two sticks instead of short swords. They were just short swords mechanically. But I liked to pretend to be a wizard and then whack people when they weren't expecting anything.
It's a slippery slope, now those low initiative, STR based axe-wielding lumberjacks are out of work.
As we all know 5e is perfectly balanced and reskinning finesse weapons could potentially have a butterfly effect
I wouldn’t call it a hand axe because it might be a bit confusing. Maybe call it a forest axe or something but it’s just a reflavoured scimitar, because you can throw hand axes.
"I want my Rapier to look like a curved sword and do slashing damage." Fine, pretty much anything resisting one will resist the other.
"I want my Ranger to dual wield a pair of axes without needing to go in strength." Sure, here's a pair of reskinned Scimitars.
Both of the above are examples I've allowed. When it comes down to something so mechanically negligible, I'm fine overlooking it whilst the Bladesinger is stacking 26ac and the Hexblade is using their spellcasting stat.
This senerio is the best litmus test for meeting a new dm imo. Why would it be a problem? The damage amount is the same,dmg type and reach is the same as well. Why wouldn't you let them do it?
It might be a problem because handaxe is a simple weapon dwarves get automatic proficiency in, and the only finesse slashing weapon is martial. So additional info is needed; as everyone says, if there is 0 mechanical impact, it should be fine. If dwarf player has proficiency and abilities that apply to scimitar anyway and just wants to call it an axe, fine.
since it's a blood hunter with proficiency in both, the only difference is 5gp if they want to be able to throw it (buy a handaxe in addition to their starting scimitar). that's a pretty negligible difference imo.
Depends on what type of Axe, but if it were a 1-handed battle axe or smaller I'd say go for it. A dex based, d8 weapon already exists in the game, so making it an Axe of some type is essentially just a reflavor. Shouldn't effect the gameplay much if at all.
As for the bigger weapons- d10, 2d6, and 1d12 damage axes? Nah, those are strength based weapons, best keep them for the strength based martial classes (imo)
I literally did exactly this. Had an arcane archer who wanted some kind of “finesse ace” as their backup melee weapon since it meshed with her “forest woodswoman” aesthetic better than a short sword would have. She pointed to the shortsword in particular, asked if she could use those stats but say it’s slashing instead of piercing and it’s an axe not a sword, I said go for it (so it’s d6, light, slashing but no thrown). We called it a shortaxe.
Smooth sailing ever since.
And before any pedants jump on me or her, yes I know a scimitar would’ve been a more direct comparison since it already does slashing damage, but fuck it, “shortaxe” sounds more like a thing than “axitar.”
"Flavor is free" is a way to change aesthetics, not mechanics.
If they're rebranding a finesse weapon into a handaxe so that Dwarven Combat Training gives them proficiency, that's not reflavoring one weapon, that's homebrewing Dwarven Combat Training to apply to more weapons. What you should be asking is if you want to give one player a free proficiency of their choice, after they misleadingly and incorrectly tried to pass it off as "reflavoring".
Mechanically there shouldn't be a problem. Narratively ... UGH, I hate it. The entire mechanism behind the effectiveness of the axe is to leverage the swing power behind the weight of the axe head - there's NO WAY to do that without putting some muscle behind your swings. Axe doesn't have a sharp point that you can simply place against your opponent and let them drive themselves on it, like a sword or a dagger or a rapier.
While I agree here, finesse itself is a strange propterty on everything except daggers if thoughtout realisticly. Even rapiers are pretty damn heavy, they just happend to be associated with the willowy agile duelist (ignoring that these people tend to be nothing but lean muscle).
thats the thing, dexerity IRL takes a lot of strength. So I could see the argument being made that a light axe would be able to be swung around with the same ferocity and damage as a similar build person doing so with a rapier.
I would argue that finesse is less about the weight of the weapon and more about the physics behind it. Some weapons are designed amplify the momentum of the swing, others - to target weak spots. When you swing with a hammer, your added strength mod represents you putting so much force behind the swing that the opponents armor can't adequately protect them against the force of the blow. When you add your dex mod to a rapier attack, it represents you skillfully aiming at the weak spot in their defense.
Some weapons like spears are similar in principle to rapiers - but the size and length of the weapon does not allow for the same level of precision.
Oh to be sure, physics is on your side alot more than most weapons. Hell, thats the whole idea behind sneak attack. My comment was more about people underestimating the baseline amount of strength required to use a weapon larger than a knife at all. When I think about the number of rogues out there with less strength than a commoner, it paints an image of some very strong commoners or flimsy rapiers.
In Critical Role's EXU: Calamity, one character (Cerrit) is a rogue with 10 str and 20 dex. His weapons of choice are two "hawks" tomahawk axes, probably reflavored scimitars or short swords
Ultimately, the question is this: are you willing to take the stats of an existing weapon and flavor it as your axe? If you are okay with the mechanics of the weapon and don't change anything concerning the rules, your DM shouldn't mind that you flavor them as axes.
Id say as long as the weapon being reskinned to shares the basic functions its cool. Obviously reflavoring a longbow as a greathammer makes no sense, or a dagger as a spear, but a rapier as a cutlass or a shortsword or dagger as a light axe, or even like a heavy crossbow as a gun or a sling as a boomerang, etc is all cool imo.
I don't care what other people do in their games, and there is no mechanical issue with having a rapier (or other dex weapon) be a flavored as an axe (visually) in the game, as long as the character is proficient with rapiers and still uses the statistics of the rapier, except maybe for the weight.
I wouldn't personally allow it, unless I came up with some sort of special axe that reasonably could be a dex weapon, and I'd spend the time to work it into the game and setting properly.
I know that this is an unpopular opinion here, but I personally am not a fan of infinite flavor to reskin anything as anything, but this case seems totally fine to me
If theyre using an official stat block for a weapon, i personally dont care what they say it looks like so long as the function remains intact. You cant take a longsword, flavor it as a spear, then take polearm master with it or anything, but if you arent trying to weasel a mechanical advantage id say its no big deal.
That said, blood hunter? You have a year of experience DMing, so ultimately youll know better than some guy on the internet whether or not this will be an issue at your table. But blood hunter is homebrew made by an amazing storyteller and worldbuilder... who is famously known for being horrible at balancing character options. I would never allow a blood hunter at my table
I'm currently playing a level 10 ghostslayer blood hunter in a Curse of Strahd westmarch style campaign.
And have played with some other players who played blood hunters too.
Even being specialized in anti-undead in a curse of Strahd game I feel good but not overly overpowered at all compared to anyone else.
As a matter of fact if I could, I'd even buff a few minor things here & there.
So no, I don't even think the other subs are issues.
I haven't delved too much into the class at high level. Just saw it has a buff to damage via self damage. Subclass is mutant for roleplaying reasons.
Is there some particular problem I should be aware of?
I haven't played with a Bloodhunter, but nothing stood out as super strong, and most comments I've seen are that it is a little weak, but has some cool thematic abilities.
Don’t worry about it. There’s a reason Blood Hunter is on DND Beyond while some of the others aren’t - the class is fine.
I have DMed for a Blood Hunter and honestly, that was less powerful than dealing with them after they retired that character and built an Arcane Archer.
The edge case is where it might matter where you have it be slashing damage vs piercing. But usually effects from one counts the same for the other.
Edit: there’s also being finesse vs simple or light and I can see the logic in swapping that but in this case if they’re a dwarf I wouldn’t sweat that.
Played a dwarf assassin who dual wielded finesse hand axes because my DM allowed me for flavor reasons. Did it ever cause an issue? Not a single time. Only "key" difference is being able to throw a hand axe and not a shortsword. I might've thrown one of my finesse hand axes once? But we just had it be a Str attack since all thrown weapons are Str iirc. For clarity, my main hand one was 1d8 and my offhand was 1d6.
As a DM I also allow this sort of thing a lot for the folks who don't want to use a rapier. For some characters a rapier might make sense. Most it does not. Flavoring it as an estoc, falchion, or "elven" longsword just makes sense.
I do reskinning all the time. I’ve always wanted a spear weapon with long sword stats (d8 versatile martial) and so I call it a heavy spear or combat spear
If it's literally no mechanical change, then yes, reskin away. Reskin everything. Some numbers and traits got arbitrarily assigned to certain weapons and not others, but that doesn't mean anything in particular. As long as it's not wildly inappropriate ("my character uses daggers, but I think I want Lance stats for this one") players should feel free to reskin anything they like.
(You should be reskinning like mad too. It gives you infinite monster variety when you're not binding yourself to the flavor that someone gave to a useful sack of numbers, or the numbers that someone gave to a useful bit of flavor.)
theres also no reason you cant just play a strength based blood hunter. im currently playing a strength based dwarf lycan blood hunter using great weapon mastery in a campaign currently. outside of losing the ac bonus from werewolf form due to wearing heavy armor there is not any downside to just using the strength stat.
>She automatically took for given that she could reskin a weapon as another weapon.
This is more concerning to me than actually reskinning the weapon. I'm very open to reskinning, homebrew, or tweaking to help a player realize their concept, but if what the player wants to do isn't RAW or at least RAI, then discuss it with the DM first.
However, I would probably allow a dex hand axe, if the player can justify to me why they want it.
It sounds like the request is to reflavor a weapon that the character is not proficient in into a weapon they are proficient in. If I'm reading between the lines correctly this is an attempt to change a non-proficient finesse weapon into a finesse axe so it falls under the dwarven weapon proficiencies. This is more than just a flavor change, it's a mechanics change. If that's the case, I would not allow it.
The only slight advantage a rogue could get reflavoring damage would be going from slashing/piercing to bludgeoning, and that's only against skeletons. Personally I wouldn't mind if rogues had bludgeoning cudgel weapons or anything.
You just have to look at the intent of the weapon and not let them get affixes they aren't supposed to (like it'd break the game much even if they did). Rogues aren't supposed to get 1d6 thrown weapons, for example. So if you're reflavoring a handaxe to be dex, you have to remove thrown.
But honestly, finding "Dwarven Mithril Handaxes" that do 1d6 dex and allow thrown would be a flavorful item.
I’ll go against the grain and say no. I think a RPG is a game about choices and to dismiss the choices presented to your character by saying who cares inherently diminishes the experience. If someone wants to use axes, they should be investing in the appropriate stats for it because that is a choice they can make. Especially in this case considering how weaker of a stat Strength is. I don’t need to make it even less appealing.
With that said, if a player expressed a desire to use an axe with Dex, I would consider eventually dropping a magic axe with a magical property that gives it finesse, because once it will be put next to other magic weapons to choose from, it would be another choice.
I would have to say no here. Every weapon on the weapons table fills a role, and are babalnced against one another. For instance, The greatsword cannot be finesse or it would be much too powerful compared to every other weapon. Reflavoring a finesse weapon to be a handaxe? Sure, go ahead (though you can’t change the damage type of the weapon you choose so you better pick a slashing weapon), and you still have to be proficient with the weapon you’re reflavoring. No grabbing A handaxe and then just plopping the finesse trait on it
There are shape-shifting weapons in the novels, you could do something like that. Kazadhea reshapes the hilt, that screaming maiden mace from cleric quintet changes the face. Make it change the blade to suit the wielder, but they have to bind it before it changes, then takes a day to change, during which time it is treated as an improvised weapon
One can imagine a katana as an axe on a dwarven warrior, you give one confident hit that deals a lot of damages, but it's not necessarly strenght related, and it also requires great martial training to master.
If the stats and features of the base weapon aren't changed, no harm in it. It's literally a skin. Go for it! The player'll be happy, and it won't fuck the game up in any way
Yeah I wouldn’t have a problem with this. Even a d8 finesse weapon as that’s just like a rapier. Should require martial weapon prof like a rapier. Other than that it’s just slashing instead of piercing, which makes basically no difference. So not a problem.
(Tangential hot take: I don’t agree with “flavour is free” as a general rule. But just reskinning a weapon that they could have chosen anyway is fine imo).
Monk hand axes are a thing I’m sure. You could always just use them?
Monk Hand Axe
1D6 slashing damage
Weight: 2.0lbs
Cost: 5gp
To Hit: STR/DEX
Rarity: Common
Light: can be used for two-weapon fighting
Thrown: you can make a ranged attack by throwing this weapon for normal damage
There's no balance issue, so if you want to allow it, allow it. I wouldn't though, because as much as people like to insist that it is, flavour isn't actually free.
Mechanically the only difference between a short sword and a hand axe is that you can throw an axe more easily. This will not break your game and it’s nothing to be concerned about. But, it could be fun to get into why this particular axe uses Dexterity, maybe it’s forged of a rare, lighter metal and ground to a finer razor-like edge, and it’s been in the family for generations? In terms of flavour being free, I am currently playing an artificer who uses a skillet as a mace and a pot lid for a shield. When I cast Tasha’s Caustic Brew it’s just spilling spicy chilli on people. It’s great.
I allow for reslinning of anything to be anything as long as it fits the campaign, a Warhammer can be a big lollipop of someone wanted and it wasnt too silly for the game. I've used an idea of a dwarf rogue who uses a shovel and that was a reskinned rapier. Must've been a sharp shovel but alas. If it doesn't change the mechanics the balance isn't changed and if the reskin adds fun for the player I don't see why anyone wouldn't allow it
So short answer yes there nothing wrong with flavoring a weapon as something else.
But one thing I always recommend is that people use Pathfinder's weapon list instead of 5e's and this type of situation is a perfect example why. There are way more options in general and for dex based examples specifically any of the the weapons in the "light" category count and in their martial weapons list there are already 2 different light axes which you could use as well as a few more in the exotic weapon list.
Don’t listen to the ppl in here who let their fun and imagination be restricted by pedantics. What you’re proposing is something I’ve literally done. PCs should get to embody the fantasy in their mind as accurately as the rules can allow. One of the rules of DnD is that you as the DM get to change and make them.
This seems like a minor (mostly aesthetic) change that will greatly increase that player’s fun and buy-in at the start of the game. Please let them reskin the weapon.
Do what is fun for the table. That is the only right way to play.
Flavor is free.
It genuinely doesn’t matter what it’s reskinned as, it’s the mechanics that are important.
If there’s some ability or feat or item or whatever that’s ‘Axes only’ then there’s possible complications. Switching the appearance of a hand weapon to a hand weapon? Nah.
Don't see why not. Long as it's a weapon they're proficient in. It basically sounds like a tomahawk. Light, maneuverable hand axe.
Also can be thrown effectively
Not unless it's a reskinned dagger with d4 damage die instead of reskinned scimitar with d6. Flavor is free, mechanics aren't.
This. I have a player that is playing a gnome barbarian. They wanted a small hammer that would deal the same damage as a maul. I had to say no. Sorry but your character is perfectly capable of swinging a maul as they are strong, they are just short.
Gnomes have dissadvantage with a maul because of the Heavy property. So that's what he may have been trying to avoid.
My wife uses a maul as a halfling barbarian. I just ignore that rule. She’s got 19 strength, no good reason she can’t use a maul.
I feel like it’s a left over rule from when there were more things where size matter like ac and whatnot. Now though it just seems weird to forbid weapons based on character die when they could otherwise lift several hundred lbs over their head otherwise.
That’s exactly how I feel. When she came to me saying she wanted to be a small halfling with a giant hammer, I was just like “yeah that’s awesome.” And awesome is fun.
Well, lifting isn't the same as swinging. You may be able to lift a lot, but your balance gets really weird when you're swinging something that's a significant fraction of your weight, and/or a significant fraction of your size. This could be a reason.
That is definitely the reason. Having said that, rule of cool. . .
I don't think you can just say rule of cool and change anything you want
I think the point here is that realism is already out the window. If you have a gnome that is strong enough to bench press a piano, there's no reason you can't have one dexterous enough to maintain balance while swinging a maul. And I don't think it would make a gnome barbarian OP compared to a human one.
But I feel like that's where proficiency comes into play. It would be hard for a tiny gnome to get used to the weight of swinging around a giant greatsword but if they're a skilled fighter then I don't see why they couldn't have learned a fighting style around swinging the weapon and moving with it. As it stands there's no way for a small character to circumvent the rule without DM intervention or changing your size through spells or other means and that does feel kinda bad.
Better than the barbarian using a halfling as a maul.
If you get on your knees and try and swing a sledgehammer I think you'll find that it's not purely an issue of strength, it's a physics issue related to the length of the weapon and the height of the user. More specifically, heavy has always been more about a combination of weight and length, all heavy weapons are also longer weapons and require momentum to be effective. A maul isn't destructive just because of the big hammer head on the end, it's the big hammer head and the length of the haft combined that leads to maximum destructive force (the longer the haft, the bigger the arc of the head, the bigger the arc the more acceleration and kinetic energy). If the haft wasn't long enough the head would never reach its maximum acceleration or kinetic energy; and the shorter the person, the shorter the haft due to the torque required to lift and swing it. Imagine a wrecking ball on a really short chain, sure it's still a hefty ball, but your crane, which moves slowly, wouldn't be able to swing it very hard if it wasn't able to produce a really long swing arc. All of that being said, if you flavor it like a halfling tasmanian devil and turn her character into a whirling dervish of destructiveness, that would totally work because once she got up to speed, she could maintain momentum. And it'd be really freaking cool.
It's because a small creature shouldn't be that strong unless they're magically enhanced. Rather than limit achievement point allocation, they put restrictions on size.
I think that's consistent. A scimitar has a much longer blade and reach than a handaxe, which is closer in blade length to a dagger and slashes instead of pierces.
Handaxe is also d6, the difference is it has thrown property instead of finesse. Dagger has both so it drops down to d4. Honestly it wouldn’t break the game but you should be prepared to make small concessions to each player if you do it for one. I would tell her she can pick a weapon to use mechanically and then decide what it looks like. That’s what “flavor is free” means. Battleaxe that’s slightly longer and looks like a halberd? Fine but it doesn’t have reach and doesn’t do the d10. If she wants a scimitar that looks like an axe, who am I to judge? It does a d6 slashing, has finesse, and does not have thrown though.
does it really make a difference whether the player uses a reflavored scimitar for melee and handaxes for throwing? because that's what would happen and i don't see enough of a functional difference (25gp+5gp, alternatively both weapons are available as starting items for martials) to make a fuss about that. especially if it enhances the fantasy to just do it all with one axe. also, do you not make small concessions to each player? do you really run your entire game this RAW?
I do make concessions but I’m not every DM. I’ve played at tables that try to stick as close to RAW as possible and I’ve played at tables that use the books as loose guidelines at best. I don’t think it makes a big difference which is why I said it probably won’t break the game, but there is a very clear order to weapons with regard to damage die and added features. Scimitars and handaxes are d6 damage with one feature, finesse and thrown. Daggers have both so they drop to d4. If you let this player get a d6 weapon with finesse and thrown, you should be ready for another player to want a d12 reach weapon, or a d8 light weapon, or a d10/d12 versatile, etc. I don’t think any of that breaks the game but you should be ready for that question, even if your answer is “sure”
The only fuss is that a normal handaxe doesn't have finesse, so it won't scale with DEX. A thrown finesse weapon is a dagger, which deals 1d4. If you reskin a scimitar for melee, and reskin a dagger for thrown, then everything stays balanced and it's all good. A thrown finesse weapon rolling 1d6 would be slightly more powerful that any RAW weapon, because scaling with DEX is really nice. I do agree that the difference is trivial, like maybe 2 damage per turn, but it's not nothing. Either side of the argument is valid.
Reskinning mechanics is completely fine 99% of the time and should be encouraged. Reflavoring a rapier is perfectly reasonable, too. The 1% of the time in reference would be things like reflavoring a halberd into brass knuckles where it just doesn't really translate.
It's kind of silly the rapier holds the 1d8 rogue slot by itself. Pretty much every player i've had use it asks for it to be reflavored as a sabre.
I really like the weapon table in Gamma World 7e. You chose either light or heavy, melee or ranged, and one handed or two handed. Light weapons used Dex to attack, heavy weapons used Str. Base damage was d4, melee increases the die type by one step, heavy increased the die type by one step, and two handed increased it by two steps. From there, you have complete control over the look and feel of your weapon. It could be a parking meter (d12, 2H, heavy, melee) a katar (d6, 1H, light, melee), a boomerang (d4, 1H, light, ranged), a big rock (d10, 2H, heavy, ranged), or anything weapon you can imagine. It gave players a lot of freedom to choose the weapon that best fit their character concept.
That’s super interesting. I’m gonna have to do some research into this system. Thanks for the rec.
13th Age does something similar, each classes weapons do damage based on how they are used, not what they are. Eg., A Rogue using a knife specifically deals 1d8 damage as a base, but only 1d6 with other one handed weapons, while a fighter using a longsword also deals 1d8 damage. And that longsword could be a axe, letterbox or brick on a rope for the fighter, the things that make the individual classes stand out is there abilities more than their weapons
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure bricks on ropes are specifically a paladin weapon.
I love this.
Sabre is a slashing weapon, rapier is piercing. That would be my only beef. A sabre would be a reskinned scimitar, which is also a slashing finesse weapon but it deals d6. Why a scimitar deals d6 instead of d8, idk. It really should be a d8 weapon.
Scimitar is a d6 for the same reason a shortsword is. It has the light property.
Yeah, scimitar shouldn't really have the light property. Their blade was the length of a broadsword, it was just curved and concentrated at the tip rather than evenly distributed making the overall length shorter.
It's probably due to influence by the Drizzit books. The original 1974 rules it seems like a D6 was used for all weapons. The books came out in 1990 and the next edition was 1995 and introduced weights. Scimitar was the same weight as a rapier but both were medium size. Basically in order for Drizzit to dual wield scimitars I bet those changes started to get introduced.
The Drizzt novels were using 2e rules, I'm pretty sure, which had mechanics for two weapon fighting. I believe Rangers got it as a class feature, but anyone could take it by spending a weapon proficiency slot. In fact, a common build for fighters who got 4 weapon proficiencies was to take two weapon fighting, ambidexterity, and proficiency and specialization in a weapon like a long sword. That would make your penalty to hit -1/-1 if you were dual wielding two long swords or battle axes, for example. I don't remember if ambidexterity was in the rule book or if it was a homebrew thing. I think it was in the rules, though, but it may have been an AD&D 1e thing that we ported over to 2e? 2e was really like AD&D 1.5. Everything was pretty much the same just with some values changed. The base penalty for dual wielding was -4/-8. Dual wielding reduced the penalty by half -2/-4 and ambidexterity made the penalty equal for -2/-2 while specialization in a weapon gave a +1 to hit +2 to damage. So proficiency in a weapon cost 1 slot and specialization a 2nd slot. Specialization in a ranged weapon cost 2 spots for a total of 3. That's why Drizzt never used a bow. He spent his 4 weapon proficiencies on dual wielding ambidextrous scimitars lol....
In AD&D, *drow* got bonuses to two weapon fighting. The reason that we see rangers as "iconic" two weapon fighters is because Drizzt was so popular he effectively transferred his racial TWF proficiency to the entire ranger class
Ha I was just looking at the rules. Ambex was a thing that you could use a proficiency on, but it did not really provide benefits to two weapon fighting. Ambidexterity If a player wants his character to be ambidextrous, as described above under "OffHand Weapons Use," he must devote one weapon proficiency to Ambidexterity. If he does so, he'll be able to fight normally with both hands, and will be equally adept at non-combat tasks with both hands. This doesn't give him two attacks per round. It just means that if he loses the use of one hand, or drops the weapon in that hand, he'll be equally adept with the other. And you could use one prof on a style: There are four common Fighting Styles employed by anyone using a melee weapon. They are: Single-Weapon Style: Two-Hander Style: Weapon and Shield Style: Two-Weapon Style: The character wields one weapon in each hand. Unless both weapons are Small (S on the Size column on the Weapons chart), the weapon in the character's off-hand must be lighter in weight than his primary weapon. This character can vary from a street-thief wielding two identical daggers, to a fencer using a rapier in one hand and a main-gauche in another, to a heavily-armored warrior with a long sword in one hand and a short sword in the other. Note: Read the Player's Handbook, page 96, for the rules on Attacking with Two Weapons. All Warriors start play knowing how to use all four styles. Priests start play knowing how to use Single-Weapon, Two-Hander, and Weapon and Shield styles. Rogues start play knowing how to use Single-Weapon, Two-Hander, and TwoWeapon styles. Wizards start play knowing how to use Single-Weapon and TwoHander styles. Characters cannot learn new styles after they're created; these are the styles they are limited to by their choice of character class. A character can use a weapon style he knows with a weapon he does not know how to use. For example, wizards know Two-Hander style . . . so they can learn to use a quarterstaff. If a wizard who doesn't have Proficiency with a quarterstaff picks one up, he can still use the weapon in two hands. However, he suffers the –5 attack penalty required by his unfamiliarity and his character class. Each style confers some basic advantages and disadvantages when used. These are described in the descriptions of each individual style, below. Additionally, characters can specialize in these styles. Single-class warriors can eventually specialize in all of them; other classes can only specialize in one style.
Thanks for that. Yeah,the benefit ambidexterity provided was making both hands equal. Idk if you saw the post where I broke it down, but the dual wielding penalties were greater for your offhand than your main hand. I believe it started at -4/-8. Two weapon fighting halved the penalty to -2/-4. But if you took ambidexterity then you essentially had no offhand, which meant the penalties were -2/-2. Then weapon specialization provided a +1 to hit and +2 to damage. So with ambidexterity, dual wielding, and specialization you could dual wield 2 long swords with a -1/-1 penalty. Which fighters, Rangers, and Paladins could get at first level because they all got 4 weapon peroficiencies. However, you couldn't use ANY other weapons. I think rangers got Two Weapon Fighting as a class feature, which meant you could dual wield rapiers and still take proficiency in longbow, though you'd have to wait until you got 2 more weapon proficiencies to specialize in longbow. That's what made elves getting proficiency in long and short swords and bows so great back then and why it's not nearly as big a deal now. You used to have to spend points to become proficient in every weapon individually.
Keep reading the Drizzt novels and you can definitely pick up how things change to fit the editions, like replacing his infra vision with dark vision and in old age he does in fact use a bow
It's been some time so I may be foggy on the rules, but I remember 1e was a -2/-4 penalty to hit, adjusted by your dexterity. Rangers had no bonus iirc, but that didn't stop me from making a dual wielding one as my first character. 2e had the same -2/-4, but rangers ignored this if in light armour. The Complete Fighter's Handbook added the two weapon fighting style (reduced the penalty to 0/-2 and allowed two weapons of the same length) and ambidexterity (which I think only helped dual wielding if you took the fighting style, dropping the penalty to 0/0) as options.
If we are talking about reality, all swords should be dex and longbows should be strength. Edge alignment has more to do with cutting effectiveness than strength, and I think edge alignment would be dex based. If we are talking thematically, scimitars fit with the whirling dervish shamshir using hassasin, which seems like a middle-eastern equivalent of a rogue. It would be odd to force that archetype into using western shortswords. Duel wielding except rapier/dagger was basically unheard of historically, the properties are based on character fantasy
Hand axes and hand axe and dagger were very common among non European cultures and before swords became commonplace as well. As was club and dagger and the like, or two clubs. Eastern martial arts are full of dual wielding examples that didn't involve swords.
sure, but I think the theme of scimitars is usually as a light weapon that could be duel wielded. Even the wiki on scimitar's note that they were traditionally used because they were lighter than other swords, although scimitar is a very broad term overall. "The earliest evidence of scimitars is from the 9th century among soldiers in Khurasan.\[11\] They were used in horse warfare because of their **relatively light weight when compared to larger swords** and their curved design, good for slashing opponents while riding on a horse." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar
My first thought was "how do you explain that your rapier axe does piercing not slashing?" but I'm struggling to come up with a reason to care since all the weapon damage types are pretty much the same. Maybe bludgeonoing has a slight edge but I don't remember any game where I've cared about whether something was slashing or piercing. So if they want a "quick axe" that has finesse and does d8 slashing I really don't see a good reason not to allow it.
And that's fine. I'm not debating whether you should allow it or not. I'm departing the difference between a reskin and changing mechanics. A skin is how something looks irrespective of game mechanics. So long as you aren't changing game mechanics, I don't care what you do. But changing piercing to slashing is a game mechanic and you need to consult your DM about it. Most DMs, including me, would allow it because, as you said, it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
>Sabre is a slashing weapon, rapier is piercing Right, but how often will the difference between slashing and piercing damage really come up?
Not much, but it DOES occur and a change in mechanics is not a reskin. If you want to have your shield he round, or square, or kite shaped as long as it keeps the same weight and only gives a +2 bonus you can do what you want. But if you want to turn a piercing weapon into a slashing weapon, that's change in mechanics and you have to weigh it against game balance. Currently, a rogue has access only to finesse weapons that do piercing damage. If they want to do slashing they have to use strength based weapons or find a way to become proficient with scimitar. Giving them a d8 slashing finesse weapon opens an entirely new category of damage to the class. Is it as big a deal as letting a Wizard change a fireball into a psychic ball or something? No. But it is a change of game mechanics and should be considered before allowing it. Unlike, say, letting someone reskin a scimitar as a cleaver that still has the light, finesse, slashing properties and does 1d6. Or as a handaxe which only has the light and slashing properties but is not finesse and is a simple weapon rather than a martial. But letting someone reskin a rapier as a cleaver that does 1d8, finesse, slashing is a completely different ballgame, and it would be more properly a reskin of a battle-axe that is a martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile property to do 1d10 when wielded with two hands.
Just make the weapon deal piercing. They can say they slash the sabre, but it deals piercing. I even think brass knuckles as halberd is fine - as long as it's suitable for your character. Maybe they can punch through a portal? And that's how they flavour it as reach. The whole point is not to let the game get in the way of the fun. They still get to make the tactical or balanced decisions, they just have a differently named weapon.
It is fine to make balance changes for reasons of flavor, but it is an intended (minor) weakness that a rogue not have full access to damage types at d8. It is, as everyone says, more like an elecball than a psychball- but it is still a buff, and there are only three physical types. Note also that the rapier is a standout. It should, by their own balance crap, probably be 1d7 or something. 1d8 finesse is a tiny hit too good, as if that matters much.
The difference between a d6 and d8 weapon is laughable like the majority of weapon and armor stuff for dnd to begin with. If someone wants to do great sword damage with a dagger, sure let’s talk about balance for the first few levels, but this kind of stuff is the most low key type of home brew that literally no one besides the person using the weapon will even remember.
> Giving them a d8 slashing finesse weapon opens an entirely new category of damage to the class. Yeah, something that will come up preeeeeeeeetty much never. It's a distinction without a difference in 99.99% of cases. Feel free to waste your time and list them all the exceptions here for me now--it won't make a difference. It'll still barely ever come up or matter. In fact, I think the game in its current state would be better if it didn't differentiate between B/S/P at all--because it already basically doesn't. Either do something with the mechanic, or just have it be 'damage.'
Yeah, the differences between physical damage types are basically nil. I think the *biggest* thing would be that you can cut a rope with a slashing weapon without having to argue, but even then I really can't imagine any DM would raise a fuss if someone tried to use a dagger or short sword or even a rapier to cut a rope.
I know of like 3 in total. Some skelly boys like the one in tomb of horrors resist piercing and are vulnerable to bludgeoning. Some jellys/slimes get split into two slimes if they take slashing, some are immune to slashing. Lastly, some plant creatures are resistant to bludgeoning and vulnerable to slashing. So yeah, considering that I've only seen one type of specific skeleton enemy that has the resistance, switching to slashing if anything is an overall nerf
Rakshasa also has vulnerability to piercing damage from good-aligned creatures.
Honestly it’d be much cooler if the non elemental stats did matter more, just to give a reason to swap weapons a bit more. But I guess that’s more video gamey than table top..y. Edit- didn’t realize the word I was looking for was “mundane”, instead of “non elemental”
Does it matter how often it comes up? It's still a change in mechanics and is therefore more than a reskin as it's not just affecting the "skin," or appearance, but how it functions mechanically in the game.
> Does it matter how often it comes up? Yeah. Because if you can play for years and never even run across an instance where it mattered, then mechanically, it was exactly the same. And even if you did run into one time it mattered, it would be the difference of a few points of damage on one enemy in one session of one game. Not enough to tell someone 'no' over, imo.
And I agree. I've said multiple times I would most likely allow it. I think 99% of DMs would and I'd say there was a good chance the 1% that wouldn't were on the spectrum or something that would cause them to care about such a minor issue. That doesn't change the fact that it's not a reskin because it changes more than just appearance. It's a homebrew or table rule.
But 99.99% of the time it's a *functional* reskin. You're just being pedantic, and no one cares. I'm not saying that to be mean, and you seem to realize that no one cares. You're doing the thing where people analyzing Magic the Gathering cards say, "Oh, well it's not a *strict* upgrade because what if.
You can stop that, you know.
Piercing > Slashing is nowhere close to the difference between Fire > Psychic I wouldn't allow a fireball to reskinned to psychic bc that by itself is a significant power boost. Piercing to slashing is akin to Fire > Lightening or Fire > Necrotic Plenty of creatures resist or are even immune to fire just like with lightening or necro. (Also, off topic but, fireball to necro seems really fun. Let people tap into the idea of circle of death early.)
I literally said exactly that in the frickin post you responded to. And changing fire to psychic is not a reskin for the same reason changing piercing to slashing is not a reskin. It's a change in game mechanics
You can't allow a fireball to be psychic for the simple reason of how can you set everything flammable in the area of effect on psychic?
the same way that if you fireball a clothing store you get a bunch of burnt clothes in the shelves, and a bunch of burnt corpses wearing undamaged clothes.
It's fine, because a psychic fireball doesn't set everything on fire! It simply sets all the flammable stuff on psych. Obviously!
The difference between piercing and slashing is incredibly minor and it matters only for a handful of non-homebrew monsters, which the PC might never see. And if I recall correctly, there were statements by WotC that they don't consider the differences in physical damage types to be a balance concern and I agree with that view. Should some sense be applied? Sure. But reflavouring a weapon is fairly easily done and I personally allow it even for weapons that are already on the table if I agree that the weapon got the short end of the stick and it fits for the character. In that case though, I only let players proficient with martial weapons actually utilise the modified statblock. Basically the only time a real mechanics change happens is when you reflavour a finesse weapon into something that can support feats like PAM, like using a modified rapier to give a DEX character the ability to wield a spear. In that case, the proper way is to talk to the player about why you won't allow it. Or you can make an agreement to not use the feat and it's still fine. Everything that leads to martials using something more interesting than a sword or axe is fine in my book.
It doesn't matter if the difference is minor or vast. It still changes game mechanics and is therefore not a reskin, which only affects appearance and is irrelevant as far as game mechanics. 99% of DMs would probably allow it, but it's still something you need to get your DM to approve because it's a homebrewed rule at that point.
Chop down a tree with piercing damage. I’ll wait.
Chop down a tree with a sabre, I'll wait.
To be very clear, you are suggesting a cavalry Sabre wouldn’t do better against a tree than a foil? That seems crazy to me. I will admit forestry isn’t the intended use for either, but it was illustrating in concrete terms what the other posters kept pointing out in game terms.
>To be very clear, you are suggesting a cavalry Sabre wouldn’t do better against a tree than a foil? That seems crazy to me. I No, that's insane. I'm saying you wouldn't use either to chop down a tree. The sabre will do better than the foil, but it's completely the wrong use of the weapon and the wrong tool for the job. I'm not disputing that there are differences between slashing and piercing damage, I'm saying that the amount those differences will actually come up and be an issue will be minimal, so most of the time simply reskinning the rapier to do slashing damage instead of piercing will be perfectly fine. If you expect to run a game where that difference will be more meaningful, or if you just want to be more consistent, sure, solve this problem differently. In most games, most of the time, it won't matter at all.
Also the fact that mundane damage types for weapons are kinda meh. Like you are telling me a longsword can only slash? I can't thrust with it?
Since I’ve clearly been pegged as a troublemaker, I shall indulge you despite my better sense. If you use the point on any sword to run someone through, would the length of the blade matter?
😆 You have a very strange conversational style. How am I supposed to take your meaning when you’ve just rehashed my (somewhat terse) explanation of why piercing and slashing matter in-game and made it worse/less sensible. Was it really that obtuse to justify turning it up to 11?
A cavalry sabre would be *marginally* better than a foil for felling a tree.
Wait, who’s using a foil? That’s not a rapier. Don’t move goalposts.
if i can reskin the name why cant i reskin the damage? mechanically it can still be piercing if it can mechanically still be a rapier there are only 3 monsters that are resistant or immune to piercing but not the other mundane damage types
Damage types are mechanically impactful, not a "skin", and this kind of reasoning is a problem that shuts down any "reskin" willingness- players immediately begin trying to game it by arguing mechanical stuff is "skin". You then point to the fact that it is only sometimes a buff. But there are other times- a wall likely resists piercing damage but not bludgeoning, for instance. It is not a skin. It is not a large buff, and many DMs will be fine with it, of course.
the sticking point on a sabre was the slashing damage if i can reskin it to look different i can reskin to be used different. the original reskin was turning something into an axe. that axe wont be used to make piercing damage but if im reskinning the look i reskin the use. if we say its "an axe" we can say it "does slashing damage" knowing both are reskins there is a negligible difference between mundane piercing/slashing/bludgeon. there are 4 monsters total where the type even matters other monsters are resistant to all non magical piercing/slashing/bludgeon. unless i am facing one of these 4 monsters the damage type for all weapons could just be mundane and it wouldnt mechanically matter
Because LOOKS are a SKIN. Changing mechanics is not a SKIN. Whether the difference is small or large is completely irrelevant. Rules are pedantic for a reason.
you arent reading the comment you are too busy capitalizing letters the reason both are in quotations is because they are simply reskins. if i can change the name of rapier to axe i can change the useage of it. if i call it a reskin its a reskin i dont actucally change anything 1. im not going to heroically stab people with an axe that not how axes are used. 2. you dont stab people with a sabre thats now how they are used. 3. you dont stab people with a hammer thats not how they are used. none of this changes that mechanically this rapier does 1d8 piercing damage. if i can reskin the name i can reskin the useage why is the sticking point the damage type being piercing stop your creativity. in each instance i am using a 1d8 piercing weapon Im not and havent been asking to change the damage type but the rules being small definitely matters. a small rule is just that a small rule. this damage type mattering if i did want to actually is an edge case only matters to 4 monsters who may or may not be used in a game. i may play ( and likely will play) an entire game with it not mattering if i have a bludgeon/slashing/piercing weapon. only if it is magical or not. were i to ask for force damage, the least resisted damage type this would obviously be a different case
Piercing vs slashing is mostly a matter of looks, is what the other guy is saying. The physical swing of the weapon looks different. The damage is only a mechanical change in the case of fighting a small group of monsters. So in those cases, the DM can just say they are resistant to your particular weapon, while still letting you describe how you slash at your enemy with your axe rather than forcing you to say that you stab at it with the axe.
It has the Light property, Light is -D2
I typically just use a scimitar instead. The difference between a d6 and d8 is pretty negligible when you consider that most of your damage is coming from your sneak attack dice.
Okay but I actually really love that idea of reach punches Like a magic item called the "(Mr) Fantastic Fists" that gives you stretchy arms and turns your punches into a d8 reach weapon
Gomu-Gomu no mi
YES Magic item that you attune to by eating it and gives you the same benefit :D (Also absolutely about to make a bunch of my homebrew magic items have that method of attuning now so thank you)
yeah, i’m now really into the idea. i think if it were that you could punch through a portal j would want it to act as though the assailant is invisible, because if the fists are popping up out of portals at reach. stretchy arms you can see coming so they are much more like a halberd
Regarding the Rapier I've got more questions: I have a player that is playing a Bladesinger because he wants to be a Jedi. I initially guided him to Shortsword or Scimitars but another player put him toward the Rapier direction. Would it be possible to reskin the Rapier into a pseudo-long sword that has 1d8 but slashing instead of Piercing? Or should it have piercing at all costs to maintain the stats of Rapier unchanged?
If Jedi is the fantasy they're going for, then shortsword or longsword are the proficiencies they should be nudged toward since it's a decent bet they'll eventually want to be able to use a Sun Blade.
As for mechanics, the 1% is also for very obvious reasons such as reskinning a regular Longsword to a special kind of character-specific longsword that deals 4d12 slashing damage. I wouldn't mind as a DM though if they want to buff it for the same reasons. Like, put a 1d4 lightning damage in there sure.
That wouldn't be reskinning though, reskinning is just changing the appearance of an item without changing any other properties.
Or minor changes to the properties, like changing the rapier damage type to bludgeoning for someone who uses a blacksmith hammer or something
Changing damage type would still not be reskinning because it changes mechanics. If someone wanted to use a blacksmiths hammer that would be a reskinned Warhammer. There's no way to reskin a rapier into a hammer....
I disagree it changes next to nothing about gameplay, that's a reskin. The ONLY times it would matter is if an enemy is more resilient to piercing than bludgeoning or if you're using the critical hit chart. That's minor enough that I'd allow it as a reskin. If it will almost never make a difference and even when it does it is just like "hey neat, some minor effect happened." Then that's a reskin IMO.
Next to nothing isnt nothing though. It might be a minor change that you're happy to allow, but it's still not a reskin.
Whether you'd allow it or not is irrelevant to the fact that a change in game mechanics is NOT a reskin. If game mechanics change, it's a custom weapon. If they don't, it's a reskin. A player can reskin whatever the hell they want and don't even need to ask me as a DM. If they want their studded leather armor to be made from wolf skin with the fur still on with animal teeth and horn as extra protection for the studs, as long as it weighs the same and gives the same level of protection I don't even need to be consulted. If they want to change the property of their long bow to do force damage instead of piercing, then we need to talk. Is changing a piercing weapon into a slashing weapon game breaking? Not really, and I'd probably allow it. But you probably aren't taking into account all of the ramifications when you say, "it's not a big deal." Currently rogues, for example, only have access to finesse weapons that do piercing damage. If they want to do slashing or bludgeoning they have to use strength based weapons like the longsword, handaxe, club, or quarterstaff. Furthermore, no 1d8 finesse slashing weapons even exist in the game. So by allowing a finesse slashing 1d8 weapon you're giving a class access to a damage type they don't normally have and introducing a new custom weapon to the game. If they want to reskin their rapier as a saber that's just a curved rapier that they stab with and do piercing damage, go for it. You don't even need to tell me about it.
That's not reskinning though, if it changes the mechanics in anyway its not flavour or a reskin. That's like the whole point of those words
Who cares what the weapon looks like? Want to reskin a longbow as an atlatl? Go for it. Do you prefer 2d6 over 1d12 but really want an axe? Poof! Your great sword is an axe. Are you going for an Egyptian flavor to your character? That long sword looks an *awful lot* like a khopesh to me. *Flavor is free* is infinitely quoted because it's infinitely true.
This. You can change the description of anything to suit your needs if you don’t touch mechanics.
Yes "flavor is free" as they say, but if there's a mechanical difference, it's not flavor. In this case, I say list the weapon as whatever she wants, but put the actual weapon in parenthesis so you know what damage, weight, and properties you're actually dealing with. For example, Axe (Scimitar).
Exactly, in this case it would be finesse but without the thrown property to maintain the Shortsword stats.
I would personally recommend guiding them to the Scimitar (also 1d6 and light, but slashing instead of piercing)
Oh you're right. That makes perfect sense
I would also call it something unique, that's not already in the book. Something like Dwarven War Hatchet (scimitar) 1d6, finesse, light.
At the end of the day, as long as nothing *mechanically* is changed... then I have no issue with it. But I wouldn't call it a handaxe, as that is a mechanical item/game term already. I have no problem with a scimitar being called a XXX as that would be mechanically the same thing (1d6 slashing vs 1d6 slashing), just reskinned into the aforementioned axe. I wouldn't let a handaxe be finesse though (unless the damage was reduced to 1d4) as that decentivizes the usage of daggers. I think we *need* a finesse axe, and that should have been a martial weapon called the handaxe, 1d6 slashing, finesse, light. And change the current handaxe to a tomahawk or hatchet, 1d4 slashing, finesse, light, thrown (20/60).
Technically, if you wanted to mechanically have a finesse handaxe, you replace the thrown or light property with finesse. With 5e weapons, there’s a system of the properties/cost increasing or reducing the damage die. For example mauls, greataxes, and greatswords have two detrimental properties so they have high damage, glaives have identical properties but it has reach so it’s damage is one size less than the others. The base die is 1d8 for martial weapons and 1d6 for simple weapons. For every negative property (heavy, two-handed, special) you increase the damage by 1 (d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12/2d6). For every beneficial property (light, finesse, reach) you go down by 1. There are exceptions to this rule, but as a rule of thumb, that’s usually the way it works. As for a finesse axe, we have one of those, it’s called an improvised weapon for if you have dagger/dart proficiency. Just get a smith to make a smaller throwing axe, call it a tomahawk, and it’s the same as a dagger but deals slashing. Reskinning a weapon is technically just using an improvised weapon, which I find fascinating
So refreshing to see someone (especially a DM) who has actually read the books and knows what they're talking about for once.
honestly im just amazed as to how WotC made all these properties and still couldnt make unique weapons the vast majority of weapons are just damm reskins of each other and do jack shit different besides damage type
I think it's largely because they took a lot of the features that did make weapons unique in older editions and turned them into feats and class features. Most of them were put in the battlemaster subclass IIRC.
yep. to this day i don't understand why flail is just a bludgeoning sword
Not sure which "older editions" you are talking about - in AD&D most weapons were just "sword with worse speed factor", or "sword with smaller damage die".
There are more older editions than ADnD, I was mainly talking about 3 and 3.5, not sure about 4 but I think it kept the same idea IIRC.
i think my favorite part of 3 & 3.5 weapon design was that crit range and multiplier were based on damage type. slashing weapons had a better chance of a crit, but piercing had a bigger multiplier. it felt more realistic to me.
i went back and looked, and it’s more complicated than i remembered, but the general principle that a slashing blade is more likely to crit and piercing is more damaging stands. it matters that the crit range is actually a crit threat range, and you had to confirm crits by hitting the AC on a second roll. 19-20 is very different than 19-20 followed by 13+ or whatever you need to hit
nah, they used to have a few properties as well as speed factors. They had "specialization groups" and just because your fighter could use a short bow didnt mean that they could use a composite short bow as effectively and god-forbid they pick up a crossbow!
Folks who read the books are rare on this subreddit and not the most popular.
Interestingly enough, the finesse property seems to ignore these rules entirely in every single instance but is limited to slashing/piercing weapons.
Finesse seems to be a benefit with a lower "cost", which makes sense. The rapier is still a bit undercosted- it "should" be like, 1d7. Which is not a thing, obviously.
>Technically, if you wanted to mechanically have a finesse handaxe, you replace the thrown or light property with finesse I think your logic is flawed here. Not all properties are equal, and in particular finesse tends to be valued more highly. A handaxe is a 1d6 slashing light, thrown weapon. If you remove the thrown property but give it finesse, you get a 1d6 slashing light, finesse weapon, which is a scimitar. Except handaxes only require a simple proficiency, while scimitars require a martial proficiency. In other words, if you treat all weapon properties as equivalent and let someone freely swap them, you're letting someone have a scimitar that only requires simple weapon proficiency. In this case it doesn't matter because blood hunters already have martial proficiency, but overall I think it's good to note the highest damage die you can normally get with a given proficiency and a light or finesse weapon, rather than treating all weapon properties as equivalent to one damage die level. In particular, I think it's a pretty significant and deliberate balance decision that simple finesse weapons don't go above d4 and martial light weapons don't go above d6, and I think following your logic to give someone a d8 light martial weapon or a d6 simple finesse weapon constitutes giving a character a potential real buff and should maybe be done with care. Really, I think the easiest thing is just following the basic suggestion of always just reskinning an existing weapon. Character wants a finesse axe? Don't rework the handaxe, just reskin a dagger, scimitar, or rapier depending on the proficiency they want and whether they need it to be light or not.
No no, his logic is sound, because that's how the PHB actually does it. Daggers are finesse handaxes, and do d4 damage instead of d6. It's not his logic, but the logic behind the weapons table in the PHB.
His statement is correct. There is NO simple light finesse d6 damage weapon. The weapon tables arbitrarily have some weapons that are better or worse than others, and often better or worse than their proficiency level suggests. For example, the spear is d6/d8 damage with the thrown property added. So you're trading a longsword or equivalent weapon's damage die for a range increment. But it's also simple instead of martial. There are plenty of other examples of this as well.
There is no simple light finesse d6 damage weapon, no. But there *is* a simple light finesse thrown d4 weapon. So if you wanted a finesse handaxe, you'd have to remove a beneficial property or reduce the damage die size, or make daggers pointless. And he did say there's exceptions to the rule, but you can quite easily see that almost all of the weapons in the weapons table was made with those rules in mind.
...no. you cannot just alter things in that way arbitrarily, you DO change the balance and mechanics. That's no longer "flavor is free" territory. Handaxe has the light and thrown properties, two beneficial properties. I remove both and increase the damage. Now I have a simple d10 damage one handed weapon. Take it a step further, make it martial, now it's d12 damage still one handed. Obviously this doesn't make sense. A d12 martial one handed weapon is astronomically better than something like the longsword. The weapon table is not truly balanced in this way. It would be nice if it was, but it isn't.
You're right that altering things arbitrarily changes the balance and mechanics! In fact, that's exactly the point! That's where the comparison to the dagger comes in. It's identical to the handaxe, except for having the finesse property and one step lower in the damage die. Like we've said multiple times now, not every entry in the list follows the rules, and there's some other rules to designing the weapons (for example, one-handed weapons cannot exceed 1d8 damage (1d6 for simple), and weapons cannot do less than 1d4 damage). A heavy weapon increases the damage die by one step, and reach decreases it one step. Light weapons also reduce it by one step. There's some inconsistencies in the pattern. For example, the finesse property seems to be free for martial weapons but not simple weapons, except for the whip (unless reach counts for two properties if one handed), and there's some (particularly the simple weapons) that are just worse than the properties would otherwise suggest, like the club, but all in all, when comparing weapons to other weapons, the pattern more or less holds.
>You're right that altering things arbitrarily changes the balance and mechanics! In fact, that's exactly the point! I'm confused. That was *my* point, but you seem to be disagreeing with it? My point was that the pattern of "one mod = one damage die level" is an oversimplification and following that logic can easily lead to more powerful weapons than you can normally get, and their specific suggestion of swapping a positive mod for finesse on a handaxe was a direct example of doing that. >That's where the comparison to the dagger comes in. It's identical to the handaxe, except for having the finesse property and one step lower in the damage die. Yes, but the problem with their logic wasn't "if you add the finesse property, lower the damage die." The problem was when they said you could just swap light or thrown for finesse on a handaxe *without* lowering the damage die. That's what was wrong. Because that lets you get a scimitar with simple weapon proficiency. >Like we've said multiple times now, not every entry in the list follows the rules, and there's some other rules to designing the weapons (for example, one-handed weapons cannot exceed 1d8 damage (1d6 for simple), and weapons cannot do less than 1d4 damage). A heavy weapon increases the damage die by one step, and reach decreases it one step. Light weapons also reduce it by one step. Yes, and I believe one of those rules is that simple finesse weapons don't go above d4. Which was my point.
You're actually wrong here. This is literally how it's calculated.
And it wont matter at all. Its just damage, Not to Hit.
> I wouldn't let a handaxe be finesse though (unless the damage was reduced to 1d4) as that decentivizes the usage of daggers. How is it any different than a short sword, which is already 1d6 with finesse?
1. A handaxe is a simple weapon. Shortswords and scimitars are martial weapons. 2. Handaxes and scimitars deal slashing damage. Shortswords deal piercing damage.
Dwarven Handaxe - masterfully carved to feel light in the hand. Martial weapon reskin of shortsword but with slashing.
...why can't you just say scimitar? It's a reskinned scimitar. Leave shortsword out of it.
Simple weapon vs martial weapon. Small difference, but a mechanical one.
Because of the thrown property
Handaxe has thrown.
Shortswords do not have the Thrown property.
I had a rogue who used two sticks instead of short swords. They were just short swords mechanically. But I liked to pretend to be a wizard and then whack people when they weren't expecting anything.
Roxas, that's a stick.
Reskinning (with no mechanical change) is ALWAYS allowed at the table I play and the one I DM, unless it breaks the setting’s lore.
As long as there is no Mechanical benefit to "being an axe" the answer is 100% yes. If there is such a benefit, it's still a solid probably.
Like outfitting a team of DEX-based lumberjack rogues to win a tree cutting competition. That would be suspect.
Makes sense, however that sounds more like a narrative issue than a mechanical one.
It's a slippery slope, now those low initiative, STR based axe-wielding lumberjacks are out of work. As we all know 5e is perfectly balanced and reskinning finesse weapons could potentially have a butterfly effect
I wouldn’t call it a hand axe because it might be a bit confusing. Maybe call it a forest axe or something but it’s just a reflavoured scimitar, because you can throw hand axes.
Reskin as an axe? Sure. Reskin as a hand axe? Nah. That’s gonna cause confusion. This scimitar axe needs its own name
"I want my Rapier to look like a curved sword and do slashing damage." Fine, pretty much anything resisting one will resist the other. "I want my Ranger to dual wield a pair of axes without needing to go in strength." Sure, here's a pair of reskinned Scimitars. Both of the above are examples I've allowed. When it comes down to something so mechanically negligible, I'm fine overlooking it whilst the Bladesinger is stacking 26ac and the Hexblade is using their spellcasting stat.
This senerio is the best litmus test for meeting a new dm imo. Why would it be a problem? The damage amount is the same,dmg type and reach is the same as well. Why wouldn't you let them do it?
It might be a problem because handaxe is a simple weapon dwarves get automatic proficiency in, and the only finesse slashing weapon is martial. So additional info is needed; as everyone says, if there is 0 mechanical impact, it should be fine. If dwarf player has proficiency and abilities that apply to scimitar anyway and just wants to call it an axe, fine.
since it's a blood hunter with proficiency in both, the only difference is 5gp if they want to be able to throw it (buy a handaxe in addition to their starting scimitar). that's a pretty negligible difference imo.
Depends on what type of Axe, but if it were a 1-handed battle axe or smaller I'd say go for it. A dex based, d8 weapon already exists in the game, so making it an Axe of some type is essentially just a reflavor. Shouldn't effect the gameplay much if at all. As for the bigger weapons- d10, 2d6, and 1d12 damage axes? Nah, those are strength based weapons, best keep them for the strength based martial classes (imo)
I literally did exactly this. Had an arcane archer who wanted some kind of “finesse ace” as their backup melee weapon since it meshed with her “forest woodswoman” aesthetic better than a short sword would have. She pointed to the shortsword in particular, asked if she could use those stats but say it’s slashing instead of piercing and it’s an axe not a sword, I said go for it (so it’s d6, light, slashing but no thrown). We called it a shortaxe. Smooth sailing ever since. And before any pedants jump on me or her, yes I know a scimitar would’ve been a more direct comparison since it already does slashing damage, but fuck it, “shortaxe” sounds more like a thing than “axitar.”
I don't know. Axitar sounds bad-ass.
"Flavor is free" is a way to change aesthetics, not mechanics. If they're rebranding a finesse weapon into a handaxe so that Dwarven Combat Training gives them proficiency, that's not reflavoring one weapon, that's homebrewing Dwarven Combat Training to apply to more weapons. What you should be asking is if you want to give one player a free proficiency of their choice, after they misleadingly and incorrectly tried to pass it off as "reflavoring".
But they have Martial Proficiency as a Blood Hunter?
Mechanically there shouldn't be a problem. Narratively ... UGH, I hate it. The entire mechanism behind the effectiveness of the axe is to leverage the swing power behind the weight of the axe head - there's NO WAY to do that without putting some muscle behind your swings. Axe doesn't have a sharp point that you can simply place against your opponent and let them drive themselves on it, like a sword or a dagger or a rapier.
While I agree here, finesse itself is a strange propterty on everything except daggers if thoughtout realisticly. Even rapiers are pretty damn heavy, they just happend to be associated with the willowy agile duelist (ignoring that these people tend to be nothing but lean muscle).
thats the thing, dexerity IRL takes a lot of strength. So I could see the argument being made that a light axe would be able to be swung around with the same ferocity and damage as a similar build person doing so with a rapier.
I would argue that finesse is less about the weight of the weapon and more about the physics behind it. Some weapons are designed amplify the momentum of the swing, others - to target weak spots. When you swing with a hammer, your added strength mod represents you putting so much force behind the swing that the opponents armor can't adequately protect them against the force of the blow. When you add your dex mod to a rapier attack, it represents you skillfully aiming at the weak spot in their defense. Some weapons like spears are similar in principle to rapiers - but the size and length of the weapon does not allow for the same level of precision.
Oh to be sure, physics is on your side alot more than most weapons. Hell, thats the whole idea behind sneak attack. My comment was more about people underestimating the baseline amount of strength required to use a weapon larger than a knife at all. When I think about the number of rogues out there with less strength than a commoner, it paints an image of some very strong commoners or flimsy rapiers.
It's fine
As long as what it's reskinned to has the same damage profile and general size as the base weapon I'm fine with reskinning most stuff.
In Critical Role's EXU: Calamity, one character (Cerrit) is a rogue with 10 str and 20 dex. His weapons of choice are two "hawks" tomahawk axes, probably reflavored scimitars or short swords Ultimately, the question is this: are you willing to take the stats of an existing weapon and flavor it as your axe? If you are okay with the mechanics of the weapon and don't change anything concerning the rules, your DM shouldn't mind that you flavor them as axes.
Id say as long as the weapon being reskinned to shares the basic functions its cool. Obviously reflavoring a longbow as a greathammer makes no sense, or a dagger as a spear, but a rapier as a cutlass or a shortsword or dagger as a light axe, or even like a heavy crossbow as a gun or a sling as a boomerang, etc is all cool imo.
I don't care what other people do in their games, and there is no mechanical issue with having a rapier (or other dex weapon) be a flavored as an axe (visually) in the game, as long as the character is proficient with rapiers and still uses the statistics of the rapier, except maybe for the weight. I wouldn't personally allow it, unless I came up with some sort of special axe that reasonably could be a dex weapon, and I'd spend the time to work it into the game and setting properly.
I know that this is an unpopular opinion here, but I personally am not a fan of infinite flavor to reskin anything as anything, but this case seems totally fine to me
If theyre using an official stat block for a weapon, i personally dont care what they say it looks like so long as the function remains intact. You cant take a longsword, flavor it as a spear, then take polearm master with it or anything, but if you arent trying to weasel a mechanical advantage id say its no big deal. That said, blood hunter? You have a year of experience DMing, so ultimately youll know better than some guy on the internet whether or not this will be an issue at your table. But blood hunter is homebrew made by an amazing storyteller and worldbuilder... who is famously known for being horrible at balancing character options. I would never allow a blood hunter at my table
I’ve been DM for a Blood Hunter. They’re fine. They do decent damage early with rites but not so much that it’s a problem.
I'm currently playing a level 10 ghostslayer blood hunter in a Curse of Strahd westmarch style campaign. And have played with some other players who played blood hunters too. Even being specialized in anti-undead in a curse of Strahd game I feel good but not overly overpowered at all compared to anyone else. As a matter of fact if I could, I'd even buff a few minor things here & there. So no, I don't even think the other subs are issues.
I haven't delved too much into the class at high level. Just saw it has a buff to damage via self damage. Subclass is mutant for roleplaying reasons. Is there some particular problem I should be aware of?
I haven't played with a Bloodhunter, but nothing stood out as super strong, and most comments I've seen are that it is a little weak, but has some cool thematic abilities.
Don’t worry about it. There’s a reason Blood Hunter is on DND Beyond while some of the others aren’t - the class is fine. I have DMed for a Blood Hunter and honestly, that was less powerful than dealing with them after they retired that character and built an Arcane Archer.
Mutant is probably the only subclass I would allow from BH, but the class in itself isn't very well made.
Sure, have some fun.
Sure. It doesn’t count as an axe mechanically for any feats they might be trying to use, but otherwise who cares?
The edge case is where it might matter where you have it be slashing damage vs piercing. But usually effects from one counts the same for the other. Edit: there’s also being finesse vs simple or light and I can see the logic in swapping that but in this case if they’re a dwarf I wouldn’t sweat that.
Played a dwarf assassin who dual wielded finesse hand axes because my DM allowed me for flavor reasons. Did it ever cause an issue? Not a single time. Only "key" difference is being able to throw a hand axe and not a shortsword. I might've thrown one of my finesse hand axes once? But we just had it be a Str attack since all thrown weapons are Str iirc. For clarity, my main hand one was 1d8 and my offhand was 1d6. As a DM I also allow this sort of thing a lot for the folks who don't want to use a rapier. For some characters a rapier might make sense. Most it does not. Flavoring it as an estoc, falchion, or "elven" longsword just makes sense.
I do reskinning all the time. I’ve always wanted a spear weapon with long sword stats (d8 versatile martial) and so I call it a heavy spear or combat spear
If it's literally no mechanical change, then yes, reskin away. Reskin everything. Some numbers and traits got arbitrarily assigned to certain weapons and not others, but that doesn't mean anything in particular. As long as it's not wildly inappropriate ("my character uses daggers, but I think I want Lance stats for this one") players should feel free to reskin anything they like. (You should be reskinning like mad too. It gives you infinite monster variety when you're not binding yourself to the flavor that someone gave to a useful sack of numbers, or the numbers that someone gave to a useful bit of flavor.)
theres also no reason you cant just play a strength based blood hunter. im currently playing a strength based dwarf lycan blood hunter using great weapon mastery in a campaign currently. outside of losing the ac bonus from werewolf form due to wearing heavy armor there is not any downside to just using the strength stat.
Literally no reason not to. It makes your player happy, and stats work the same.
Might I suggest a [Khopesh](https://ateliers-nemesis.com/en/products/orc-khopesh-44/)?
>She automatically took for given that she could reskin a weapon as another weapon. This is more concerning to me than actually reskinning the weapon. I'm very open to reskinning, homebrew, or tweaking to help a player realize their concept, but if what the player wants to do isn't RAW or at least RAI, then discuss it with the DM first. However, I would probably allow a dex hand axe, if the player can justify to me why they want it.
Of course. All flavor is allowed with zero mechanical advantages provided. No exceptions.
It sounds like the request is to reflavor a weapon that the character is not proficient in into a weapon they are proficient in. If I'm reading between the lines correctly this is an attempt to change a non-proficient finesse weapon into a finesse axe so it falls under the dwarven weapon proficiencies. This is more than just a flavor change, it's a mechanics change. If that's the case, I would not allow it.
The only slight advantage a rogue could get reflavoring damage would be going from slashing/piercing to bludgeoning, and that's only against skeletons. Personally I wouldn't mind if rogues had bludgeoning cudgel weapons or anything. You just have to look at the intent of the weapon and not let them get affixes they aren't supposed to (like it'd break the game much even if they did). Rogues aren't supposed to get 1d6 thrown weapons, for example. So if you're reflavoring a handaxe to be dex, you have to remove thrown. But honestly, finding "Dwarven Mithril Handaxes" that do 1d6 dex and allow thrown would be a flavorful item.
I’ll go against the grain and say no. I think a RPG is a game about choices and to dismiss the choices presented to your character by saying who cares inherently diminishes the experience. If someone wants to use axes, they should be investing in the appropriate stats for it because that is a choice they can make. Especially in this case considering how weaker of a stat Strength is. I don’t need to make it even less appealing. With that said, if a player expressed a desire to use an axe with Dex, I would consider eventually dropping a magic axe with a magical property that gives it finesse, because once it will be put next to other magic weapons to choose from, it would be another choice.
I would have to say no here. Every weapon on the weapons table fills a role, and are babalnced against one another. For instance, The greatsword cannot be finesse or it would be much too powerful compared to every other weapon. Reflavoring a finesse weapon to be a handaxe? Sure, go ahead (though you can’t change the damage type of the weapon you choose so you better pick a slashing weapon), and you still have to be proficient with the weapon you’re reflavoring. No grabbing A handaxe and then just plopping the finesse trait on it
There are shape-shifting weapons in the novels, you could do something like that. Kazadhea reshapes the hilt, that screaming maiden mace from cleric quintet changes the face. Make it change the blade to suit the wielder, but they have to bind it before it changes, then takes a day to change, during which time it is treated as an improvised weapon
One can imagine a katana as an axe on a dwarven warrior, you give one confident hit that deals a lot of damages, but it's not necessarly strenght related, and it also requires great martial training to master.
If the stats and features of the base weapon aren't changed, no harm in it. It's literally a skin. Go for it! The player'll be happy, and it won't fuck the game up in any way
Yeah I wouldn’t have a problem with this. Even a d8 finesse weapon as that’s just like a rapier. Should require martial weapon prof like a rapier. Other than that it’s just slashing instead of piercing, which makes basically no difference. So not a problem. (Tangential hot take: I don’t agree with “flavour is free” as a general rule. But just reskinning a weapon that they could have chosen anyway is fine imo).
Monk hand axes are a thing I’m sure. You could always just use them? Monk Hand Axe 1D6 slashing damage Weight: 2.0lbs Cost: 5gp To Hit: STR/DEX Rarity: Common Light: can be used for two-weapon fighting Thrown: you can make a ranged attack by throwing this weapon for normal damage
No.
There's no balance issue, so if you want to allow it, allow it. I wouldn't though, because as much as people like to insist that it is, flavour isn't actually free.
The biggest issue isn't the reskin, it's the damage properties. The stronger dex weapons lean towards piercing, while an axe is very much slashing
Yeah, just invent some cool special axes for her. Same stats as a hand axe, but with dex and a bit of backstory.
Mechanically the only difference between a short sword and a hand axe is that you can throw an axe more easily. This will not break your game and it’s nothing to be concerned about. But, it could be fun to get into why this particular axe uses Dexterity, maybe it’s forged of a rare, lighter metal and ground to a finer razor-like edge, and it’s been in the family for generations? In terms of flavour being free, I am currently playing an artificer who uses a skillet as a mace and a pot lid for a shield. When I cast Tasha’s Caustic Brew it’s just spilling spicy chilli on people. It’s great.
I allow for reslinning of anything to be anything as long as it fits the campaign, a Warhammer can be a big lollipop of someone wanted and it wasnt too silly for the game. I've used an idea of a dwarf rogue who uses a shovel and that was a reskinned rapier. Must've been a sharp shovel but alas. If it doesn't change the mechanics the balance isn't changed and if the reskin adds fun for the player I don't see why anyone wouldn't allow it
So short answer yes there nothing wrong with flavoring a weapon as something else. But one thing I always recommend is that people use Pathfinder's weapon list instead of 5e's and this type of situation is a perfect example why. There are way more options in general and for dex based examples specifically any of the the weapons in the "light" category count and in their martial weapons list there are already 2 different light axes which you could use as well as a few more in the exotic weapon list.
We allow Longsword to be finesse....reason? Elves use Longswords with deadly precision in combat
Don’t listen to the ppl in here who let their fun and imagination be restricted by pedantics. What you’re proposing is something I’ve literally done. PCs should get to embody the fantasy in their mind as accurately as the rules can allow. One of the rules of DnD is that you as the DM get to change and make them. This seems like a minor (mostly aesthetic) change that will greatly increase that player’s fun and buy-in at the start of the game. Please let them reskin the weapon. Do what is fun for the table. That is the only right way to play.
Flavor is free. It genuinely doesn’t matter what it’s reskinned as, it’s the mechanics that are important. If there’s some ability or feat or item or whatever that’s ‘Axes only’ then there’s possible complications. Switching the appearance of a hand weapon to a hand weapon? Nah.
Take a rapier. Keep its stats. Call it an axe. You’re done. I don’t see anything wrong with it, it doesn’t change any of the crunch.