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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

We just...took other feats. Idk man, it just wasn't an issue for us, pretty much ever.

also, that is an issue with feats in 4e, not the weapons list. Too fiddly, too focused on already strong weapons, and generally stronger than they needed to be compared to other feats.

 

[Blue]

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 object to sub-optimal weapons when it gets in the way of my character concept.

If I have a cool mini using a spear that I want to build, should my fighter be penalized because it's a so-so weapon?

But are we really disagreeing? Are you married to Weapon X (like spear) has statistics Y, or do you just want a category of "not as good" but anything can be described like how 13th Age does it. So I can have a "spear" and it's a good weapon regardless how it's skinned, but breaking out of prison all I can find is a "bronze knife" that's disadvantaged/sub-optimal. That I'm cool with.

To me, "mundane gear as differentiator" is more of a SF concept.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I want a fairly extensive weapons list, even if multiple weapons are essentially identical. But I'd also be perfectly okay with grouping variations under one entry. Give me half a dozen variations of a longsword, with all the names and cultural baggage, but list them under "longsword".

 

[Gradine]

I will add that I really like expanded weapon lists, as a player, I find them interesting and can add several layers of depth to combat that can be fun from time to time. I would just object to that being a part of the core game. Expanded weapons through 3PP, house-rule, indie developers on DM's Guild, or even official expansions? I'm all for that. If D&D is "all things to all people", then more options for more playstyles is inherently a good thing. But I like keeping the core simple. I rather suspect this is what was meant by "modular design"; I just think we didn't expect WotC to farm out modular design work as much as they have.

In any case, the notion that the current list is broken and needs to be fixed is suspect and highly subjective at best. What it seems like people want is an opportunity to for more varied tactical options for martial characters, where there is a perceived lack of such in the core system. I would posit that that is true only for a given playstyle, one in which the rules as written define the limits of character behavior, and I would thus posit that the limiting factor is the style, not the system. Such a playstyle is in no way less valid than any other, but I think it's fair to say it's less supported by the basic principles in 5e (with its "rulings over rules" philosophy). But that then goes back to that whole "modular design" thing which fallen more on the community than we might have initially preferred. The core is streamlined, the add-ons can thus add complexity where it is desired.

Requesting an expansion that could be added on to better suit your preferred playstyle is a far cry from declaring a thing broken and demanding it be "fixed", though.

 

[LapBandit]

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,

greatsword; two handed, damage 2d6, heavy, str req 16

I like your system, but if the greatsword is heavy and two handed by your system it shoud be an increase of 3 damage die to 2d8.

 

[Colder]

I answered that I want an extensive list, but really I just want a list that has some noticeable, mechanical distinction between a battle axe and a longsword. I'd settle for feats.

Either that or go all the way to fluff-only weapons. The current path is just too middling for my taste.

 

[Blue]

I want a fairly extensive weapons list, even if multiple weapons are essentially identical. But I'd also be perfectly okay with grouping variations under one entry. Give me half a dozen variations of a longsword, with all the names and cultural baggage, but list them under "longsword".

Would you be okay with "one handed martial d8 slashing versatile (1d10), describe how you like?" instead of "longsword"? So for one character it's a longsword, another it's a short razor whip, another it's a bronze spear, depending on their concept and the setting?

 

[Horwath]

I like your system, but if the greatsword is heavy and two handed by your system it shoud be an increase of 3 damage die to 2d8.

it should.

corrected.

Thanks.

 

[Nebulous]

I liked how 13th Age did damage, by character class, so if the Fighter picked up a big sword, axe or polearm or even a dagger, he's going to do more damage than a thief using the same weapon. At least, I think that's how it worked, I haven't looked at those rules in a long time.

 

[Wyvern-Quill]

A game could have all the stats and variables for a weapon but allow more then one depth of play for their use