Talk:Dwarven Urgrosh (5e Equipment)
From D&D Wiki
Balance Concerns[edit]
First and Foremost, I'd like to state that skipping the needsbalance template and running straight to proposing deletion because you have a personal creation that you deem better is not something I can approve of. It's hasty and borders on narcissism and doesn't give proper regard to process or other's creations.
Second, on the matter of balance concerns, as far as I understand, part of the reason a variant was made in the first place was because your original version, and now the subsequent one, deviate from the 3.5e weapon it is adapted from and rely on allowing other homebrew feats to utilize in the same manner it was intended. Since feats are not allowed in every game, making the weapon rely on feats diminishes its value and is distinctly different from the standard of other weapons in 5th Edition.
It should also be said that while a DM may allow a single homebrew weapon, requiring them to also allow a homebrew feat and/or feat chain to use that weapon sufficiently is not necessarily appropriate nor acceptable to all DMs.
If the concern is balance, then we can approach it from that standpoint; Clearly 1d6 appears to be the highest light weapon damage available. It stands to reason that a character, without feats, can reasonably use two 1d6 weapons. The average damage of two 1d6 weapons (with a reasonable strength modifier of +2 applied to the primary hand) would be 9 damage.
If we lower the secondary attack of the Urgrosh to 1d4 piercing, its average becomes virtually the same (9-9.5 damage). --Jwguy (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (MST)
