D&D 5E Missing weapons?

[Undrave]

I was looking at weapons while deciding what proficiencies to grant my homebrew warlord when I realized there’s no weapon with Reach with a damage die between the Whip’s d4 and the Glaive(and co.)’s D10. Feels like there should be a D6 and D8 weapons with that property, or at the very least a D8 one.

Maybe a ‘Greatspear’ that’s a D8 Reach, Two-Handed weapon, but to make it useful, it wouldn’t be Heavy? If the Lance can be wielded by a Halfling with d12, not sure why there's nothing smaller with reach...

 

[DND_Reborn]

All I can say is not every niche needs to be filled.

Longer "reach" weapons tend to be heavy, two-handed, etc. The whip is the exception to your typical reach weapons. That's all there is to it IMO.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've never been a fan of creating a weapon for meta purposes. IMO, it needs to have a place and fit into the game for reasons other than "we don't have a weapon that does dX damage"

And I'm surprised by the halfling lance thing. That has to be an oversight in the book. It says you have to use two hands when not mounted, but it should also have the heavy property.

 

[Olrox17]

I've never been a fan of creating a weapon for meta purposes. IMO, it needs to have a place and fit into the game for reasons other than "we don't have a weapon that does dX damage"

And I'm surprised by the halfling lance thing. That has to be an oversight in the book. It says you have to use two hands when not mounted, but it should also have the heavy property.

Well, considering that the lance is a strength weapon, and no halfling subrace (that I'm aware of) has a STR bonus, I'd say it's alright. It wouldn't be overpowered, and I enjoy the mental image of a crazy couched lance halfling charge.

 

[Undrave]

All I can say is not every niche needs to be filled.

Longer "reach" weapons tend to be heavy, two-handed, etc. The whip is the exception to your typical reach weapons. That's all there is to it IMO.

We could have just replace the useless trident by something that's actually different though...

 

[GlassJaw]

5E struck a really good balance with most systems but the weapon chart got overly simplied for my tastes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We could have just replace the useless trident by something that's actually different though...

LOL true enough!

5E struck a really good balance with most systems but the weapon chart got overly simplied for my tastes.

I agree. We re-defined and added a bunch of properties for our table. In summary:

• Ammo requires the use of both hands for such weapons, unless you use it as an improved weapon attack (using your bow as a club or staff, etc.).
• Finesse only grants the use of DEX on attack rolls, it does not allow DEX to be used for damage rolls.
• Heavy grants a half increase (round down) to STR to damage. (This makes longbows more realistic!) You must use both hands for these weapons or you lose the STR damage boost and attack with disadvantage.
• Light reduces STR to damage to half (round down).
• Loading weapons never benefit from STR to damage.
• Range weapons only benefit from STR to damage in normal range, at long range they don't.
• Two-handed property was removed as it was pretty much redundant with heavy and ranged weapons anyway.
• Versatile weapons used with both hands can gain either the finesse property or the heavy property, as the wielder chooses which for each attack when made.

We added Skewer, Stun, and Wound. These properties only come into play if you score a critical hit and the target fails a DEX, STR, or CON (respectively) saving throw.

We also have special rules for lances, whips, nets, etc. I've added the pdf if you want to read everything over.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've never been a fan of creating a weapon for meta purposes. IMO, it needs to have a place and fit into the game for reasons other than "we don't have a weapon that does dX damage"

And I'm surprised by the halfling lance thing. That has to be an oversight in the book. It says you have to use two hands when not mounted, but it should also have the heavy property.

Lances should be heavy and two-handed but only need one hand to use while mounted.

It doesn't make a big difference on the surface, but the fantasy of a lance is about big, smashing charges, not dual-wielding. Making it two-handed would let it work with great weapon master. Which it definitely should,

 

[DND_Reborn]

Lances should be heavy and two-handed but only need one hand to use while mounted.

It doesn't make a big difference on the surface, but the fantasy of a lance is about big, smashing charges, not dual-wielding. Making it two-handed would let it work with great weapon master. Which it definitely should,

Good point! I'll have to check our Lance in our homebrew rules and make certain to account for this. We always played it two-handed, etc. on the ground, but one-handed in the saddle but I want to make sure it's clear in our document. Thanks for bringing it up!

EDIT: checked it. All good.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Lances should be heavy and two-handed but only need one hand to use while mounted.

It doesn't make a big difference on the surface, but the fantasy of a lance is about big, smashing charges, not dual-wielding. Making it two-handed would let it work with great weapon master. Which it definitely should,

What I meant as an oversight is not that the lance requires 2 hands when not mounted (I have no issue with that), but that it doesn't have the heavy property when not mounted. And as Undrave pointed out, a halfling or gnome can use a lance with no penalty, but if they use any type of polearm, they attack at disadvantage. So I think it should also give the heavy property just like any other polearm when not mounted.