Talk:Half-Oni (5e Race)

Hey did some balance changes and made the oni fit in with the dnd 5e setting a bit more, they have kept their strength of wielding the two handed weapons as one handed but have lost some of the raw strength of extra AC and not being able to die so easily. hope you like it--Vladmere.Labefactum (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2016 (MDT)

Supernatural Strength

"treat two-handed weapons as versatile." - versatile weapons are defined by the fact they have two damage values: base damage for one-handed and a parenthetical value for two-handed use. So how does this work? Marasmusine (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2016 (MDT)

My DM usually just makes the weapon go down a damage die, like a Great Axe goes from 1d12 to 1d10. We're still working out how 2d6 weapons should work. He says 2d4.

2d4 damage is a good value to put on any two-handed weapon in one hand for this feature: The normal cap on one-handed weapons is 1d8 (average 4.5 damage). The average damage on 2d4 is 5, which is a marginal improvement, this isn't too overpowered. Marasmusine (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (MDT)

I see where you're going with this, but there are a lot of other races and classes that also do this and they don't even mention versatile. Should we try to update those as well. And also, doesn't this make a person take a sizable hit to their damage ability, just to have a base damage be 1 higher?

• Looking at Kydo's suggestion below, reducing the damage die by one step becomes wonky when it's 2dX.
  • 1d12 (av. 6.5) -> 1d10 (av 5.5) = -1 average damage
  • 2d6 (av 7) -> 2d4 (av 5) = -2 average damage.
• On my talk page, you said that I made everything the same damage, which isn't quite right. I made two-handed reach weapons deal 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand.
• In summary, it currently goes: 2d6-> 2d4; 1d12 -> 2d4; 1d10 -> 1d8
• What other races and classes let you wield a two-handed weapon in one hand? I don't recall any.
• I don't understand your last question. If you use this feature, you get slightly better damage than a one-handed weapon and a free hand to wield a shield/hold a lantern; you can have a reach weapon in one hand; and you have the option to go two-handed. That's pretty good.

You made all the two handed weapons become either 2d4 or 1d8s. Which made the point of using the non-reach two handed weapons pointless and only good for flavor. Because the extra .5 average damage is negligible. The half-demon race and the Master of Ceremonies class have two handed as one handed abilities if i recall. Grimeagle4 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

--Kydo (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

• Total of +4 to abilities. A little outside of what is expected. The racial traits should be subtly weaker than expected to account for the slight increase in total raw power. (Note though that +1 of that is in charisma, historically the most useless ability outside of spellcasting) If this turns out to be too much alongside their other traits, I would recommend removing the +1 to charisma, as I'm not really sure what the justification for that is. Aren't oni supposed to be horrifying monsters of extreme cruelty and evil?
• Their walking speed is 35ft, which is also significant, especially if the monk class is chosen. Again, other racial traits should be of a lesser variety to counterbalance this. I'm not sure why they're so fast either, aren't oni supposed to be kind of like ogres- huge, lumbering brutes?
• The race has darkvision, which is a common enough advantageous trait that I usually consider it to be the norm, and its absence as justification to beef up another trait. However, taken with the preceding slight gains, this is starting to look a little over-the-top.
• Gaining intimidation proficiency is a nice socialization trait, copied right over from half-orc. I like it.
• Oni-ni-Kanabo is not functional. Many characters start with less than 10hp. Using this, most level 1 characters could activate this trait the moment they take so much as 1 damage, and some characters may be able to continue to do so, through to as far as level 6, if they're rolling for HP and lack a constitution bonus! I would recommend changing the threshold to 1/10th your hp. So, for characters who begin with low hp, this acts as a new trait they spontaneously gain access to at some point during a level up. Also, this moves the threshold so it is more relevant as the character gains levels. A level 20 character is not likely to be brought down to <10hp unless that number is 0, because they have so much more total hp and monsters deal so much more damage. Also, instead of xd10 temporary hp, make that 1dx temporary hp, with the die size increasing based on character level. This is more on par with them being able to tank a single hit from a mundane weapon, with its effectiveness increasing with the character.
• 5e actually does not prevent you from carrying a two-handed weapon in one hand, you just can't attack with it- though really, one could just call that one-handed attack with a two-handed weapon an improvised weapon attack. For example, I would rely on my variant rule and say they have disadvantage while attacking that way, because it's not an intended use of the weapon. However, because that rule is NOT in the core, we'll need to do some fidgeting in the racial trait itself.

• One option is to just let the character one-hand their two-handed weapons without interference. However, this would allow a character to hold a great sword and a halberd at the same time and attack with each on a whim. It would also allow the character to do things like attack with a halberd while holding a shield in their other hand. Now, although this is perfectly reasonable in reality, and was actually done during siege warfare, the math in 5th edition makes that just a touch unstable, and this class is already a little tougher than is normally expected of a player race.
• We could go back to changing the damage die, but instead of arbitrarily changing it to 2d4, we could just reduce the damage die size by 1. d12=d10, d10=d8, d8=d6, d6=d4, d4=1. Simple. The rule would still hold true even for multiple die weapons, because you aren't tweaking the dice pool, just the die size.
• Alternatively we could flatly state that you can't hold a shield while doing this, though that would probably just be taken as a cheap, lazy, gimmicky cop-out. (It would still allow them to simultaneously attack with a great sword and hold a spellcasting focus in their other hand though, which is also a huge advantage)
• We could allow them to attack with two-handed weapons in one hand at disadvantage, running on the assumption that most DMs stand by the LAW of the weapon trait, rather than fudging it the way I do. However, disadvantage is pretty harsh, and most players will immediately notice that the decreased chance of a successful hit far outweighs the increased damage and flexibility of gear.
• Another way to counterbalance it would be to make it physically tiring to do so, either by limiting the number of times they can make such an attack per rest (once per character level maybe?) or by actually inflicting ranks of exhaustion for making these attacks after a certain number of times between rests.

I see what you put for the variant rule, but wouldn't an easy way to say this then be that they have proficiency with using two-handed weapons in one hand. If we take out the hp recovery, take out the charisma +1, and make the speed a standard 30, I feel the slightly higher damage would be worth it. I hope i'm not trying to make this race powerful, but it seems like it would make sense for this race to be able to pull off the one handed, due to counting as one size larger. Large creatures are commonly able to use items like these one handed due to their size. It's also common in mythology to see Oni with massive hammers that they easily carry in one hand. Grimeagle4 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

Here's the problem, the temp hp buff, +1 CHA, and +5ft speed are all advantages. Removing them brings those aspects of the character back to normal. Trust me, I agree the race should be able to do it. That's their thing. However, there needs to be some restraint. If you're going to have a single trait that puts the race head and shoulders above half-orc for barbarians and fighters, then that trait needs to have a counterbalance somewhere, and that counterbalance needs to be in the same realm. (IE: do not try to use a social penalty to balance a combat advantage, as the two will never interact, and therefore do not actually balance each other. A combat advantage must be balanced by a combat disadvantage.) The reason it is such a huge advantage is not because of increased damage, because you simply don't deal increased damage. Even if you're holding two great swords, you can only ever attack with one at a time, as no core book 2H weapons have the light property. The thing that's unbalanced is what the player may decide to pair the weapon with other than another weapon. For example, a spellcasting focus in one hand and a 2H reach weapon in the other gives a caster a pretty big defensive advantage! As does any combat character using a 2H weapon with a shield! After all, the 2H weapon trait is intended to counterbalance a weapon's high damage or reach by removing a free hand from play, so you need to counterbalance the benefit that sudden free hand grants some other way. --Kydo (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

Doesn't the trait require the weapon to be held in both hands, at the least the feat mentions such. The thing is, yes I'm being a tad selfish since I want to make this type of character, but at the same time we have other races, namely demigods, that are meant to be slightly stronger. I mean look at half-devils, there was a huge thing about them being op, they were edited, and they're still far more powerful than even this, hell they have the same two hande ability as this, and they add 1d4 damage to anything they hit with. Grimeagle4 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

Nope! PHB p.147, "Two-Handed: This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it." 'tis all she sayeth. So, really, there is nothing preventing you from carrying your great sword in one hand, or even carrying a great sword in each hand! You just can't attack with one without two hands. I would like to point out that I've reviewed half-devil and found it to also be woefully overpowered. Very poor design. It has also been updated with a maintenance template. This page is in much better shape. I don't think you're being selfish by creating an interesting race with a highly iconic trait. I do think the trait is, mechanically at least, not practical in play. So, I'll reiterate:

• 2H weapons counterbalance high damage and reach properties by removing your spare hand from combat, forcing you to use both hands. If a race removes that counterbalance, the race must have some sort of equivalent internal counterbalance, or the game's mechanics have been destabilized.
• Being able to hold 2H weapons in one hand is shockingly powerful if used by players who know what they are doing. A newbie who just holds his great sword in one hand will work exactly the same as a character who uses two, because that character is failing to take advantage of their free hand.
• Without counterbalance, such a character can hold a 2H weapon in one hand and a casting focus in the other. This allows casters to hold a casting focus and have a high damage or reach weapon at the ready, simultaneously. This is not otherwise possible, and nothing in the game was built with the anticipation of it being possible.
• Without counterbalance, such a character could hold a great sword in one hand, (2d6 slashing at melee) and a halberd in the other (1d10 slashing at reach) allowing them to attack any enemy within 10ft, giving them significant ground control, and allowing them to hit enemies up close even harder. Again, nothing was designed with the anticipation of this being possible.
• Without counterbalance, such a character could hold a great sword and a shield, allowing them +2AC and 2d6 slashing damage, a combination not normally possible, and again, nothing else in the game was designed with the anticipation of it.
• Without counterbalance, such a character can hold a halberd in one hand and use their free hand to grapple an enemy, again something that is not anticipated or accounted for in anything else in the game. In such a situation, the grappled target would be immobile and the grappler would be fully capable of repeatedly stabbing the target with a freaking polearm.

Considering those six points, it is very clear that in order for a race to have this trait and still be functional, it must have some equivalent combat related counterbalance which would bring them, in some way, below average. They need an actual penalty of some sort to validate that incredibly useful free hand. I have suggested a variety of things that could be done:

• Just don't let them use a shield or casting focus in their spare hand. This allows some imbalance, with the dual-wielding and grappling, while tackling the real problems, which are shields and casting foci.
• Simply reduce the damage die of 2H weapons if they are held in one hand. This kind of defeats the purpose of one-handing a 2H weapon, but it works well.
• We could have one-handed 2H weapon attacks have disadvantage. This balances the increased damage and spare hand by reducing the chances of the attack actually hitting. This is a gain of sorts, as basically nobody else can do it, but disadvantage is very harsh, and many players will not feel that the increased damage and spare hand are worth it.
• Finally, we could choose to limit the number of one handed 2H weapon attacks a character can make, implying mechanically that, although they can do this, it is still tiring because they are not actually a large creature. My suggestion would be that they can make a number of one-handed 2H weapon attacks equal to their character level, and that they must complete a long or short rest to replenish these uses. You could also allow them to exceed this limit, by inflicting a rank of exhaustion for each one handed 2H weapon attack made past that threshold. This allows them to make more of that attack if it may save their life, while still really driving home the idea that this is very hard to do. --Kydo (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I agree, some of these things issues, hence why I'm all for making the damages go down a die. That way the weapon is still better than a longsword, in general, but not as strong as normal two handed usage. It's mostly the 2d6's that worry me, do they become a 1d10 or a 2d4. Because one makes it have a much lower damage and the other takes away the minimum damage being higher. OVerall the shield and focus note makes sense. Grimeagle4 (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I actually, while looking for feats for a character, found a feat that makes sense for this race. In fact, it is effectively alreayd a part of this race as it even mentions the carry strenght. "Strong Arm" https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Strong_Arm_(5e_Feat) I feel this feat actually makes it feel not terribly unbalanced as it makes the character less accurate with the hit. Don't barbarians have a skill that makes them take a massive hit to accuracy for an equally large increase to damage. This ability could be considered a lesser version of that, as the increase is an increase in die instead of a static number and it's generally going to be 1-4 more damage.Grimeagle4 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

5e is typically against static check modifiers, particularly penalties. I have seen them from time to time, they're just usually avoided is all. My main problem with that feat, is that -2 us only a 10% decrease in accuracy. It's pretty trivial, since you're dealing more damage than usual, given your equipment layout. What about just not allowing proficiency with the one handed attack? That makes it a little less accurate, but without making it a complete crapshoot. --Kydo (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I see your point, but losing all proficiency is a bit much, as it scales with level. The weapon damage is otherwise static, slightly higher, but static. But if this is the logic we would theoretically go with, then the weapon would need to keep it's full damage, as otherwise it's too large of a hit. By the end you are losing +6 to hit in exchange for 1-4 more damage, which is also, just as poorly balanced. Perhaps having them only able to use half their proficiency? That way the negative is there, still scales, but it doesn't cause as large a gap. Grimeagle4 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

One more thing to add, this is 5e, every +1 to hit is a blessing from heaven, due to at best you can have a +6 from proficiency, +5 from a stat, and +3 from the weapon. Losing proficiency means you cut your to hit bonus nearly in half. I would understand if the damage increase was substantial like a static +6 per hit in exchange, but as it is we need something that admits that this is not as good as a unchanging bonus and is based on your own luck and building around having a slightly higher damage output. Grimeagle4 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I edited the page to include some of the ideas we've had. Personally I think it looks pretty good for now. Nothing too absurd. The only abilities of note are the proficiency with intimidation and the two handed. I left the HP one there for now because I'm also not sure if we should edit or remove it. Grimeagle4 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

Oh, absolutely, I only ever intended one counterbalance at a time, not a combination, I was just suggesting a variety of ways it could be done. Thinking back, a counterbalance involving proficiency would not work, because it has no impact on characters who wouldn't have proficiency with the weapon anyways. --Kydo (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I actually like what we have there now. Makes sense for the coming back from death as oni are also a type of spirit, so death is a funny subject for them. And the -2 to hit is an acceptable constant in exchange for the bonus damage. Should we add that to the other classes and races with the two handed ability? For the sake of consistency. Grimeagle4 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2016 (MDT)

Just trust me on the -2 to damage. It doesn't impact as negatively as you think. Grimeagle4 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2016 (MDT)

I noticed that you reverted my edit concerning the -2 to damage. I really don't see why anyone would play this race unless they want to look like a manga anime warrior. I do not think that the balance is really good enough for anyone to use this racial feature, but since it is flavorful I am not going to say that we need to remove it. We should not, however, expand this to other races since they normally have different intentions. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2016 (MDT)

What about changing it so that the penalty is equal to your proficiency bonus, rather than a static value? This would discourage people from just using the trait willy-nilly, removes proficiency bonus damage from the weapons entirely, (which is what makes it so dangerous in the hands of a min-maxer) and makes proficiency prevent a penalty, so that proficiency is still useful. --Kydo (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2016 (MDT)

Well Then!

I guess we don't have anything left to argue about! Hey, IP person! Completely rewriting a page overnight without talking to any of the active contributors is kinda' rude... But the page looks much nicer now, so I thank you. --Kydo (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2016 (MDT)

A +1 to AC shouldn't be there, I would say give them unarmored defense instead, an unconditional +1 to AC too good.

Insanity

Whelp this page went crazy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimeagle4 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Yup. I tried to revert it to a version that was borderline acceptable. (The +1 bonus to AC alone might be too much, I'm not sure.) 5e Race pages seem to get bombarded with ridiculous anonymous edits that buff them to crazy levels. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really wish anonymous edits could be blocked on all of them. That's just wishful thinking, though. - Guy (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (MDT)

Yyyup. Less than an hour later, and anon's already given this race a +2/2/2 ASI, a free feat at 1st level, and the capability to wield any two-handed weapon in a single hand, on top of all the other powerful things that still existed. Gotta love how little anon cares for balance. It reminds me why I should just avoid 5e Race pages I didn't make. - Guy (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2017 (MDT)

@BigSexy Don't unarmed attacks already add strength? Grimeagle4 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2017 (MDT)

Yeah, they do. I think that they should be able to add Proficiency to the Unarmed Attack Damage. Kintoun42 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2017 (MDT)

Hey guys, rando anon here, Fixed your Trait no.1 Darkvision 60' for you so it doesn't repeat it's description twice, also I took the liberty of being an asshole anon and decided to add fiendish as an option instead of giant to languages spoken ..... Ya know, because Oni are Japanese Mythical demons, not Giants, but didn't want to fuck with your shit too much, so added it as an alternative to Giant-speak. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.65.19 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Rando anon again. Also I'm going to take this and combine it with Drow and Tiefling to make Half-Oni/Drow, Half-Oni/Tiefling step brother races, by using Drow and Tiefling as it's base instead of Human. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.65.19 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Yeah, the darkvision was something that needed to be fixed and Fiendish as a language makes much more sense than Giant in my opinion. As for the race itself, there really isn't any traits unique to this race that indicate the race is half-human, but regardless, you are free to be creative and create a unique race, especially if you have a unique idea for the race. Anyway, hope the race creation goes well.--Blobby383b (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2018 (MDT)

History

Hey guys, rando anon here, Fixed your Trait no.1 Darkvision 60' for you so it doesn't repeat it's description twice, also I took the liberty of being an asshole anon and decided to add fiendish as an option instead of giant to languages spoken ..... Ya know, because Oni are Japanese Mythical demons, not Giants, but didn't want to change too much, so added it as an alternative to Giant-speak. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.65.19 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Supernatural Strength

So, something that's kinda bothered me is how the Supernatural Strength feature allows a Half-Oni to use Dexterity instead of Strength as long as the weapon does not have the heavy or two-handed property. This seems counter-intuitive, as that limits use of a skill that seems like it should be about the muscle they possess to being about how skilled they are, or at least, something like that. I think that this trait should be renamed to something more appropriate with a description to match, or more preferably, be reworked to focus on that strength that is supposedly supernatural.

Renaming suggestions: Half-Breed Dexterity (with the description mentioning the Half-Oni is more agile than brute as opposed to their Full-Oni parent, etc etc) Mechanic Change Suggestion: Add Proficiency or Strength Mod to the damage of an attack, with a limit of times equal to the opposite stat per short rest

Or, better than choosing one or the other to be replaced, perhaps expand the Half-Oni to expand subraces based on the non-Oni parent with different versions of these skills tied to that subrace. I might work on those later, but suggestions for this are greatly welcomed. --Kintoun42 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2018 (MDT)

feature bonuses

but why does the race give a +1 charisma? For a race like this wouldn't it be better to put +1 in constitution? or maybe let the player choose where to put that +1 to a characteristic of their choice.