D&D 5E Should the game have extensive weapon lists?

The amount of weapon detail in RPGS differs from system to system. Some will differentiate each and every polearm and provide entire books full of weapons; others will have all weapons doing the same damage, or have damage be based on the character rather than the weapon itself. D&D 5th Edition falls somewhere in between these two extremes, although previous editions have certainly flirted with the more detailed end of the scale (in fact, I dare say that Pathfinder, based on D&D 3.x, by now has one of the most extensive weapons lists in any tabletop RPG). When asked why 5E took the simplification approach, WotC's Mearls replied "We'll change that once the game's name changes from Dungeons & Dragons to Weapons & Armor". What are your feelings on extensive weapons lists? Let us know in this poll!

Mearls goes on to say:

"At one point in 5e, I wanted to group weapons by damage die. Wiz = d4, cleric+rogue = d4+d6, fighter = d4+d6+d8.

D4 = light weaponsD6 = one-handed weaponsD8 = heavy weapons

Armor would've been -Leather = lightChain = mediumPlate = heavy

Oh and one die step up for two-handed weapons, so wiz gets d4 weapons and d6 two-handers.

I like investing meaning in game components, imbuing meaning into the dice in this case. Like a d4 = light, fast weapon."

I really liked how in 3e weapons had lots of variables, and so there was always pros and cons when picking a weapon of choice.

But 5e is simpler, and perhaps this is the reason why there wasn't as much design room for weapons as before.

Still, I would certainly like to have more historical weapons listed, even if they end up being essentially equivalent to the existing ones.

I would like even more if they introduced a few more armors and shields, perhaps with some minor special property.

I would like weapon choices to matter more, but do not really need more weapons. Maybe just adding a crit-range like I saw the one time I tried pathfinder. Then the thief would have to choose between the High-crit/Low damage Dagger vs a low-crit/high damage Rapier. A lot more depth can be added with a single new variable.

I voted "no". In fact, I wished 5e had taken a hint (well, several hints...) from 13th Age, and simplified weapons even further.

I wouldn't like them to go overboard with it, but a couple additions wouldn't hurt. I liked ability to pick different shields in prior edition, whether it was simply light/heavy or buckler/shield/tower shield.

What I would really like though is for all the existing weapons to be somewhat balanced against each other, at least in class (martial/simple). Then you could simply spit out a table of loose parallels if you wanted to do an eastern or mezo-american campaign and wouldn't need to redo everything. The problem, in my view, is that they didn't do enough to give existing weapons a useful niche, and as such we see a lot of the same thing over and over. Any martial character with high dex bee-lines for the rapier, and that's super boring to me. Fix that and you won't need 400 weapons to hold people's attention.

IMHO, D&D should also get rid of martial/simple/racial weapons categories.

IF they want some racial flavor to weapons it can be some special trick that can be done with the weapon, increased range, increased damage, extra weapon trait, etc...


for melee weapons base damage should be:

1d10

Thrown(30/120ft) trait reduces damage die by 1,

Light trait reduces damage diel by 1,

finesse trait reduces damage diel by 1,

reach trait reduces damage die by 1,

Heavy trait increases damage die by 1,

Two handed trait increases damage die by 2,

damage die is 1d2,1d4,1d6,1d8,1d10,1d12,2d6,2d8,3d6,

Ofc, heavy weapons cannot have lightp), finesse or thrown properties.


also there should be strength requirement for using weapons. Low strength equals attacks with disadvantage or attacks deal always minimum damage. Pick one.

Base str requirement is 12.

light reduces str requirement by 2,

finesse reduces str requirement by 2,

heavy increases str requirement by 2,

twohanded increases str requirement by 2,


Examples:

1Handed:

dagger; damage 1d4, light,finesse, thrown, str req 8

whip; damage 1d4, reach, light, finesse, str req 8

shortsword: damage 1d6, light, finesse, str req 8

whip dagger; damage 1d6, reach, finesse, str req 10

Light hammer; damage 1d6, light, thrown, str req 10

Handaxe; damage 1d8, light, str req 10

rapier; damage 1d8, finesse, str req 10

Javelin; damage 1d8, thrown, str req 12

Halfspear; damage 1d8, reach, str req 12

Sidesword; damage 1d10, str req 12

spear; damage 1d10, reach, heavy, str req 14

longsword; damage 1d12, heavy, str req 14


2Handed:

Spiked chain; twohanded, damage 1d10, reach, finesse, str req 12

Elven courtblade; twohanded, damage 1d12, finesse, str req 12

Longspear; twohanded, damage 1d12, reach, str req 14

Waraxe; twohanded, damage 2d6, str req 14

pole-ax; twohanded, damage 2d6, reach, heavy, str req 16

greatsword; twohanded, damage 2d8, heavy, str req 16


That is 18 weapons for melee characters. 12 one handed and 6 twohanded. But that are just categories and one example. Think of the weapon fit it in one of those categories and you are good to go.


Ranged:

this will not have the same strict categories as melee weapons.

1Handed:

sling: damage 1d4, range 30/120, str req n/a

Handcrossbow; damage 1d8, light, range 50/200, loading(bonus action), str req 8


2Handed:

lightcrossbow; damage 2d6, twohanded, range 80/320, loading(action) str req 8

heavy crossbow; damage 2d8, twohanded, heavy, range 120/480, loading(action), str req 10


ash shorbow; damage 1d6, twohanded, range 80/320, str req 10

yew shortbow; damage 1d8, twohanded, range 100/400, str req 12

ironwood shortbow; damage 1d10, two handed, range 120/480, str req 14

dragonbone shortbow; damage 1d12, two handed, range 140/560, str req 16


ash longbow; damage 1d8, twohanded, heavy, range 150/600, str req 12

yew longbow; damage 1d10, twohanded, heavy, range 180/720, str req 14

ironwood longbow; damage 1d12, two handed, heavy, range 210/840, str req 16

dragonbone longbow; damage 2d6, two handed, heavy, range 250/1000, str req 18

Extensive lists aren't necessary, but I really wish they would eliminate the redundant and useless weapons.

I like the current table: it seems built mostly on common sense, and by keeping the categories simple and broad, they have covered pretty much any weapon in there.

There are specific items that I don't like (Quarterstaves usable 1-handed, Studded leather armour, shields less protective than they should probably be), but those are things easily houseruled if necessary.

Extensive weapon and armour lists with lots of minor variables and special abilities, or those trying to balance all weapons against each other can be cool for some games, but that strikes me as better handled through optional rules or DMs Guild.

Hey, I'm the only one who voted "no strong feeling wither way"... I'm that guy. I don't know whether I should feel special or outcast... I have no strong feeling either way about that either! I am a lost soul, adrift in a sea of definitive opinions.

I like perusing weapon lists eg the pole arm stuff in 1e UA but I don't think the differences are interesting in the game (though I did convert all of the 1e polearms to 4e ). So NO!

The lists in this edition are pretty much spot on, with every bit of kit having some role (even if it's just be cheap & rubbish). I don't even mind the redundant things like tridents. To my thinking these are just weapons that a are a bit better than improvised that you might have to pick up in a brawl but would otherwise never choose to use (I would not miss their absence, of course)