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

[Morrus]

My anger stems from the double standard of More complex weapons/armour = Too much overhead, whereas More spells = No problem.

While I agree with you in principle, I'd suggest that *anger* is not an appropriate emotion to be feeling about this.

 

[thedjally]

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

Do you then think that magic should also be simplified? If no, why do you feel that one deserves to have depth of choice but not the other?

 

[thedjally]

I voted the "meh" option. I loved reading about all the different polearms and what not in the AD&D PHB, but I don't really see how there's a need for that in 5e. Mearls' initial response was a bit flippant for someone whose job is ostensibly PR at this point, but his follow-up answer makes a degree of sense. Massive lists like PF are built for a specific type of play (optimization) that doesn't cater to everyone, and ends up creating smaller range of weapons in actual play as a few end up rising to the top (see: 4e's longswords) and everything else is so much page-filler or, worse, fodder for asinine "trap" conversations.

Meanwhile, damage by class means the weapon you use doesn't matter, which means it can be whatever the hell you want it to be. You don't need a massive list of weapons to have the kind of variety that would make even a 90's era Final Fantasy game blush. I understand that this type of design doesn't tickle every type of playstyle, but it certainly fits the "streamlined" paradigm of 5e much better. I don't think a D&D game could ever get away from weapon lists altogether (not even 4e was so bold in its design) but follow that paradigm, throw in a few suboptimal choices for more primitive Monster Manual baddies, and you're good to go. Really only the Rapier screws everything up in 5e; it should clearly be a d6 weapon, but that's an easy house rule fix. Just add a few words about "seriously, just re-skin these existing weapons for whatever the heck you want" (more strategically placed than in the Monk class write-up would have been preferable...) and you're good to go.

Here's the dirty secret; you don't need special rules for how to Trip with your whip or polearm #7c. Several classes have access to abilities that knock enemies prone. That's how you trip. A simple, streamlined RPG does not need any set of rules to differentiate a dagger from a shuriken, or a bastard sword from a katana, etc. And that's what 5e is.

If by several, you mean one? Or are you referring to the push/shove action which every character can do?

My issue is with how they've pigeonholed every martial class's turn into "I swing with my weapon". Meanwhile spellcasters can do that while getting all of these other options.

I would prefer if battle master was rolled into the fighter class and there were further archetypes that provided unique abilities / benefits (as current archetypes do) and then the player could select from the list manouvers and list of archetypes to make more interesting martial characters.

 

[thedjally]

I have a question that may sound snarky, so if it does, I apologize in advance. It's actually a serious question, so imagine me saying this in a very sincere tone.


Do you truly expect to be playing with a DM who, if using magic items in the game, will hand out special swords to your sword-wielding compatriots and tell you as the spear-wielder, "Sorry, I can't give you anything because the DMG doesn't have any magic spears in it"?

Or are you assuming you'll be playing with 3E-style magic shops, where the DM says "Okay, this shop has any magic item in the DMG up to Very Rare quality--but that's all"?

I mean, it sounds to me like you're saying if you wield a spear, you will probably not get a magic version of it, and that just doesn't seem like an obvious assumption to me.

I do know DMs, particularly when using pre written modules, that for better or worse do exactly this.

 

[thedjally]

More...and more complex... are 2 different things. Are they creating more spells or more complex spells... also again we've seen their willingness to address complex weapons via feats in UA... so painting a picture where they are not looking into or experimenting with added complexity around weapons is being disingenuous.

But hey if you' want to be angry about a double standard that doesnt really exist... more power to you

This is a false equivalence. Adding more spells quite clearly complicates the "weapon" of spellcasting by virtue of adding more options.

 

[Eubani]

While I agree with you in principle, I'd suggest that *anger* is not an appropriate emotion to be feeling about this.

Annoyed would be the better description but I was told that I was being angry about an issue that does not exist.

 

[Eubani]

This is a false equivalence. Adding more spells quite clearly complicates the "weapon" of spellcasting by virtue of adding more options.

Not to mention that each spell is it's own self contained mechanic with varying levels of complexity. Imagine the outcry if there were a similar number of martial maneuvers.

 

[Dualazi]

I have a question that may sound snarky, so if it does, I apologize in advance. It's actually a serious question, so imagine me saying this in a very sincere tone.


Do you truly expect to be playing with a DM who, if using magic items in the game, will hand out special swords to your sword-wielding compatriots and tell you as the spear-wielder, "Sorry, I can't give you anything because the DMG doesn't have any magic spears in it"?

Or are you assuming you'll be playing with 3E-style magic shops, where the DM says "Okay, this shop has any magic item in the DMG up to Very Rare quality--but that's all"?

I mean, it sounds to me like you're saying if you wield a spear, you will probably not get a magic version of it, and that just doesn't seem like an obvious assumption to me.

Well, yes, actually. As someone else pointed out already, if you're running a pre-built AP then I'm certain there are some DMs who are going to keep the sunblade a sunblade whether or not the spear-user wants that to be the case. In my own situation, I have been using the random loot tables for all drops in my current campaign, and as such as we progress into the later levels finding a magical sword will indeed become more likely than other weapons, certainly including the spear. To me this is a design oversight, and I personally think it's a legacy issue of the longsword in particular being favored in previous editions.

It's also worth noting that it's probably reasonable to get a magic spear, but it's far less likely (and impossible to roll off the tables) to get a spear on par with the Holy Avenger, Sunblade, Luckblade etc.

 

[Lanliss]

Well, yes, actually. As someone else pointed out already, if you're running a pre-built AP then I'm certain there are some DMs who are going to keep the sunblade a sunblade whether or not the spear-user wants that to be the case. In my own situation, I have been using the random loot tables for all drops in my current campaign, and as such as we progress into the later levels finding a magical sword will indeed become more likely than other weapons, certainly including the spear. To me this is a design oversight, and I personally think it's a legacy issue of the longsword in particular being favored in previous editions.

It's also worth noting that it's probably reasonable to get a magic spear, but it's far less likely (and impossible to roll off the tables) to get a spear on par with the Holy Avenger, Sunblade, Luckblade etc.

Is there some reason I don't know of that you can't just make it a "Sunspear"? I don't care too much if the designers made a "Dwarven Thrower" a hammer, If I feel like giving it to one of my players as a finely Jeweled Spear it is really easy. Heck, you can just add an extra table that is a list of melee weapons.

"You got a Dwarven Thrower" *Rolls* "Lance!"

 

[Dualazi]

Is there some reason I don't know of that you can't just make it a "Sunspear"? I don't care too much if the designers made a "Dwarven Thrower" a hammer, If I feel like giving it to one of my players as a finely Jeweled Spear it is really easy. Heck, you can just add an extra table that is a list of melee weapons.

"You got a Dwarven Thrower" *Rolls* "Lance!"

Sure you could, just like you could bump up the dice size for fighting-types or any other number of DM fixes that aren't even hard. My assertion was that the base RAW game favors swords* (and I definitely feel that it does), and that there are indeed DMs who play it "by the book", either for a sense of novelty or simply a misguided notion of that being how the game or AP is to be run. To reiterate, if I had my wish then it'd be a moot discussion in the first place because all weapons would be reasonably balanced against each other from the get go, or at least have a few valuable niche applications.

*Moreso with my previous arguments that most campaigns will have magic items based on their prevalence in virtually all APs. If you have no magic items at all then obviously the swords are less favored, since they don't have all the legacy enchantment stuff.