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

[Blue]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do this as it is, but I do prefer a decent amount of mechanical differentiation.

For me, and most of my players, customized mechanical differentiation enhances roleplaying to a noticeable, and very enjoyable, degree. There is a point of simplicity where we begin to feel that the rules do more to hamper us than to help us, and 5e weapons are just complex enough for us, most of the time.

Help me understand. Do you want more differentiation (and hence more complexity) or are you at the right level of complexity/more simplification (hence no more differentiation). I'm probably misreading but getting both from your post.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Help me understand. Do you want more differentiation (and hence more complexity) or are you at the right level of complexity/more simplification (hence no more differentiation). I'm probably misreading but getting both from your post.

Dangit. I thought I was pretty clear. Bummer.

So, 5e is at the low end of my "preferred complexity level spectrum". I'm fine with it, but I would prefer a little more differentiation. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly capable of improvising things like using the rapier to represent a well crafted light fighting "dueling spear", or or changing its damage to bluegeoning and calling it a fighting cane (bc a fighting cane sure and frak shouldn't be a non-finesse weapon like the club).

I'm also perfectly comfortable making a versatile version of the scimitar, and letting a player use it or the longsword for a katana.

But I would prefer to not have to do any of that, and to have a few more differentiating features in the weapon and armor system.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Only if they have significant differences between them. We don't need 10 different ways to do 1d8 damage. I'd even argue that there's no need for slashing vs bludgeoning vs piercing, at least not as the game currently stands.


Now if they each had a unique property or maneuver associated with them (like I made with this class). Then sure. But only after we fill up the weapons we use now.

The damage types could be great if they interacted with armors.

 

[Zilong]

While I voted no for extensive weapon lists, I would very much like to see a weapon variation table. We can have the phb weapons as a baseline, but a table or chart showing how different cultures have come up with mechanically similar weapons. I know the DMG has a small section on refluffing for wuxia settings and I love that section. I just want to see an expanded comparison, and maybe giving damage types to those variations (like a Chinese jian basically acting like a rapier or a katana as a longsword). Also, tangentially related to the variations, why in God's name is a club/sap not finesseable?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's what I think I want:

Simple weapons are 1d6, Martial weapons are 1d8
Heavy and Two-Handed each increase die by 1 step
Finesse, Light, Thrown, Reach each decrease die by 1 step
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing as preferred.

Have a bunch of sample weapons in the table, and allow "design your own" within those rules.

No exceptions.

 

[mellored]

The damage types could be great if they interacted with armors.

Agreed. They could be great. But that would require rewriting a lot of monsters.

Though I guess on the player side, it wouldn't be much to add something armor variety like...

Blast Suit. 16AC, resist bludgoning and thunder damage.

 

[LapBandit]

I think Optional Weapon properties are the way to go but it seems whilst the designers are happy to churn out spells any further effort on weapons and armor are and I quote "Too much overhead". Once again non magic martial classes will be the red headed step child.

So much this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed. They could be great. But that would require rewriting a lot of monsters.

Though I guess on the player side, it wouldn't be much to add something armor variety like...

Blast Suit. 16AC, resist bludgoning and thunder damage.

I doubt it would be hard to make a chart of existing monsters and NPCs, and list what armor properties they have, if any, and add those properties to digital versions of the monsters and NPCs.

I wouldn't want any of the properties to change *any* numbers in the stat block. Just affect how attacks play out in play.

 

[GMMichael]

I voted yes, but I have to say it seems better to have a minimalist system where you can houserule in something complicated that you like, as opposed to a complicated system you have to houserule to simplify. The later can be hard because the complications tend to connect to other parts of the game.

Here's what I think I want:

Simple weapons are 1d6, Martial weapons are 1d8
Heavy and Two-Handed each increase die by 1 step
Finesse, Light, Thrown, Reach each decrease die by 1 step
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing as preferred.

Have a bunch of sample weapons in the table, and allow "design your own" within those rules.

I have the game for you. And I'll be giving it away on Free RPG Day.

in D&D. Weapons are tools, and I prefer a game where a my character chooses the right weapon for the circumstances, as opposed to one where the choice of weapon is stylistic.

I'm starting to wonder if D&D is the right type of game for detailed weapons. Realistically, tons of factors go into your choice of weapon properties: enemy tactics, friendly tactics, length of enemy weapons, bulk/portability of friendly weapons, material/labor/price required, enemy armor, customs/laws, time constraints, secondary weapons/shields...

D&D looks primarily at one factor that isn't even real: hit points (damage). Then it gives a courtesy nod to secondary weapons/shields. This makes weapon choice in D&D largely a choice of style, no?

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I think The Order of the Stick had it right.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar