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

[Azurewraith]

Wouldn't the best option be to have a build a weapon workshop? It would work on a similar system to point buy stats but for things such as damage die and weapon properties. The numbers would have to be super tight to avoid abuse though. Then skin your design as you wish.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Me personally I like different weapons etc but if you look through out real history our names do not always represent what our idea of a weapon is may not match what history called them or they had 30 different variations of the weapon and varied depending on the eras and some where created to combat another enemies weapon.

D&D has traditionally been fairly bad about names for weapons etc.
However, in many cases, because we're looking at over a thousand years of history there are no distinct lines. Weapons transition into different configurations to meet changes in usage, technology, armour etc and there are lots of examples that straddle the lines between any category you might set.

I get a longsword is a martial weapon but a whip which is weird because it would be more likely used by a none trained person because it was used more as a tool or punishment then anything. That is my issue with 5e they tried too have it both ways and did a terrible job.

Whip being martial actually makes sense: lots of people can use it as a tool, but it takes specific training to make it usable as a killing weapon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Say you're DMing 5e and I, playing a rogue am fighting a goblin in the desert. I say that I scoop up some sand and throw it in the goblin's face. How do you, as the DM, adjudicate that action?

Like any ruling, it depends: on the environment (it might be a rocky rather than sandy desert, for instance), on the situation, the flow of the story, skill level of the player, how that PC had been doing relative to others, etc, etc..

In contrast, if you were armed with a metsubishi from an expanded weapon list you'd be able to blow something in the goblins face using it's mechanics as a starting point.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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 with this. For many reasons. I can go either way on the size of the list. But my interest isn't in designing a game per se, it's that the rules will support the activity in the game world. Some people are armed with a knife. Orcs and goblins aren't great weapon smiths, and their weapons are worse than human, and in general the best elven and dwarven smiths exceed their human counterparts.

The way the 5e list is designed is just large enough to show that you can rename a weapon that does the same type of attack and damage, and you're good to go. I do like the idea that certain weapons have additional abilities that can be learned with special training (a feat). So the specialized polearms, etc.

Particular weapons and armor are regional in my campaign. The small village that serves as the primary center of the campaign has two smiths, with limitations on what types of armor they can make. The same thing applies to weapons. Being in a fairly remote location (which is changing), has a big impact on that too. Other types of armor and weapons will be available as time goes on, but they won't necessarily be cheap or easy to come by. There's also a question of proficiency.

We also modified the way armor works, which makes it much better. Which also means that the historical weapons that were designed to counter armor also come into play.

But most of the time, the standard list of weapons is just fine and covers things pretty well.

 

[Ganymede81]

I am not a fan of extensive weapon lists.

I'd prefer an ultra-simplified system that gave you a damage die based on whether you used a light, one-handed, or two handed weapon, and then you can fluff it to be whatever you want.

Save the fiddly bits for race and class features.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hobbit. Martial Melee weapon. D10 Bludgeoning. Two-handed, throwing, range 10/30.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I would really like weapon damage to be based on class.

 

[steeldragons]

This thread caused me to dig out my old Basic Red box and look to see how the "simple early days" handled this.

I believe it was 15. or 16 is you want to count "dagger" and "silver dagger" as two separate weapons. Amazing to me how many hours -years!- of play with only 15 weapons to choose from.

The other, perhaps even more shocking, thing was the EQUIPMENT list, similarly, had no more than somewhere between 15-20 items on it.

Really blew my mind, after all of these decades of full pages of font size 7 or 8 weapons lists and multiple pages of equipment charts and item explanations...there they were, taking little or no more than a vertical quarter page, EACH, weapons and equipment listed right next to each other on the same page.

Simplicity is a good thing.

 

[schnee]

Simplicity is a good thing.

...except for Wizard spell lists. Gotta add more to those every chance you can get.

 

[steeldragons]

Not so sure about that either. Basic red box gave "wizards" 12 spells per spell level. That's all. The upper levels 7th-9th I think didn't even have that. Maybe 8, maybe 10 [?].

Clerics, I think in the red box didn't have more than 6 or 8 per spell level.

So...IU mean, I love my spellcaster classes...but, it depends. The game is clearly totally doable with very limited spell lists, as well.