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

[doctorbadwolf]

I gotta say, I've never seen players not use the weapon that fits their concept just because there is a better one on the list, unless it's a big difference. In 4e and 5e, the differences in power just aren't significant.

Adding in 4e style properties like brutal and high crit would be great, imo.

 

[Morrus]

I don't share the objection to "sub-optimal" weapons. Some weapons are better than others, just like you'd expect. NPCs can use them. Maybe those bandits could only get crappy weapons. Maybe when the PCs break out of the jail cell, the only gear they can grab their hands on is a pile of unusual weapons. Maybe that religious cult uses these ceremonial weapons rather than the most optimal weapon. Maybe in some campaigns or settings certain weapons are more common than others.

 

[JonnyP71]

I ran a 5E campaign in which the PCs started in a town with a severe iron shortage. They had their starting weapons as per the PHB as they were only visiting the place but the town weaponsmith was only able to provide weapons with very small metallic content - a spear, a few arrows for example - or they could use wooden weapons. So if they lost their starting weapon for any reason, they had to make do with what they could buy, or what they could find on the adventure.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't share the objection to "sub-optimal" weapons. Some weapons are better than others, just like you'd expect. NPCs can use them. Maybe those bandits could only get crappy weapons. Maybe when the PCs break out of the jail cell, the only gear they can grab their hands on is a pile of unusual weapons. Maybe that religious cult uses these ceremonial weapons rather than the most optimal weapon. Maybe in some campaigns or settings certain weapons are more common than others.

I agree. What do you think of feats that make certain, normally "weak", weapons better, through specialized training?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Extensive weapon lists are fun to have, but if the system doesn't have enough 'design space' to differentiate & balance them all, can ultimately detract from the game. 5e doesn't have a lot of depth to combat options or tactics, nor a lot of detail in it's combat or weapon systems, so even with the current list, there are 'obvious best' weapons in the few meaningful categories. The Rapier is the best melee weapon for a DEX build, for instance. You could add six different light-bladed weapons none of which were better than the Rapier, and you'd essentially add nothing. Add a better finesse weapon, like, OIDK, a Katana, and *poof* the Rapier is meaningless.

Weapons just aren't an important feature of D&D. Kinda like the fighters that use 'em. ;P

 

[Jester David]

You can certainly have simpler weapon systems. Like GammaWorld for 4e.
But D&D needs a little more granularity. Picking between a short sword and a long sword and a rapier and a scimitar is part of the game. It should be more than just flavor for your 1d8.
I like the current happy medium than a giant list of hundreds of weapons...

 

[Irda Ranger]

I voted "No", because the question is whether there should be *extensive* weapon lists, and I dislike long weapon lists that include multiple items that are basically the same thing from different cultures or historical eras (like saber vs scimitar, or gladius vs short sword). Maybe a slight expansion, but not much.

My real wish regarding the weapon list is two-fold:

1. I just wish they'd done a little research and gotten the weapon names to match the historical naming conventions a bit better. I admit this isn't harmful to gameplay for people that don't know any better, but it bothers me. The historical longsword was exclusively two-handed, for instance, so that's D&D's Greatsword. Which means there's nothing on the list that matches the Viking/Arming sword (one-handed only) or the bigger Zweihander/Claymore types.

The sword list could be simple like:
Short
Arming
Bastard
Long
Two-Handed

Then add a few specialty items:

Falchion / Cutlass
Saber / Scimitar
Rapier

I don't know if eight sword choices is too few or too many for you, but I think it's the right balance. You could include cultural equivalents, like pointing out that the katana is just a single-edge bastard sword. That not be perfectly true, but it's the level of detail I'd look for in a game.

2. Without necessarily blowing up the list of items, make more meaningful and tactical choices between weapons available. Give players a reason to carry a few different weapons, and pick them tactically. Like axes are better versus armored opponents, and spears are good versus large beasts. Rapiers are useless versus armor. Etc.

I'd probably model the weapon vs. armor issues with Advantage/Disadvantage. e.g., Rapiers have Disadvantage vs Medium and Heavy armor.

Rather than go back to AD&D's "damage dice vs large creatures" rules, I might specify which size creature a weapon is designed to fight and provide the general rules "Creatures have Resistance to weapons one size smaller, Immunity to two or more sizes smaller." Swords and axes are for Medium opponents, Spears or pikes would be for size Large, and lances could hurt size Huge. You'd need special "dragon lances" to hurt something Gargantuan.

Make reach matter. A guy with a dagger really shouldn't be able to hit someone holding a sword who's on guard. Not without taking an Opportunity Attack first.

Make maneuverability matter. A spear has great reach, but once combat is close you can't parry blows with it. Drop it, and draw your sword.

Anyway, that sort of thing. It's not an *extensive* weapon list, but it is an *interesting* and *meaningful* one. IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

My take on this:

1. I like having lots of different weapons to choose from if only because it adds to the flavour, and it doesn't bother me if some of them rarely if ever see play.
2. I would prefer more damage options than just d4-d6-d8. What's wrong with d5 or d6+1 or 2d4 or whatever, to help differentiate between one weapon and the next?
3. I far FAR prefer the 1e idea where you are proficient in a few individual weapons only (e.g. 2-handed sword, mace, crossbow) rather than entire classes of weapons (e.g. simple, martial).

For armour - in reverse to the above, I've never been a fan of armour or shield "proficiency" in any form particularly for all martial classes and clerics (except druids); preferring instead to just put it on and go. Rangers in particular - they're supposedly a martial class and thus should be able to tank it up and use heavy armour as a fact of life if they like. Class abilities being affected by armour worn, however, is perfectly fine.

Lan-"Drizz't is the sort of thing real Rangers grow up learning how to kill"-efan

 

[Blue]

I like the simplicity of the 5e weapons table - I DM for a lot of relatively new players who only know 5e and were able to jump in with relative ease.

I find the 5e table to be very bloated. I could easily remove half the weapons and it wouldn't affect a single character who's primarily a weapon wielder at my local FLGS.

 

[Blue]

I gotta say, I've never seen players not use the weapon that fits their concept just because there is a better one on the list, unless it's a big difference. In 4e and 5e, the differences in power just aren't significant.

Adding in 4e style properties like brutal and high crit would be great, imo.

Wow, 4e was the biggest culprit of that to me. In 4e all the time I saw people pick weapons not because of their RP concept but because weapon-type-X interacted with feats or powers. All the time.

If I wanted to play a trident user because of how I envisioned my character, maybe from a mini or an image, I was locked out of plenty of feats because it wasn't the right weapon type, even if they also would match what was in my head.