D&D 5E Missing weapons?

[Hriston]

I’ve added a longspear to my weapons list. It’s a martial weapon, two-handed, with reach, and does 1d8 piercing. It’s mostly to give the small characters a way to get reach.

I’ve also added “strength bows”. They work just like regular bows, but they’re more expensive, do a larger die of damage, and have a Strength prerequisite to use.

 

[Fenris-77]

It was just meant for OP warlord homebrew, I would not give it reach in my campaign, take it rather as a bonus feat e.g. : the (OPs) warlord gets reach when using a rapier since he visited a first class fencing academy.

Oh, ok sure, that makes more sense. I just shrug my shoulders sometimes at how much love DEX got in 5e and how little STR got in comparison.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I always kinda do a double take when folks say the rapier is more modern. Than what? Plate armor or dragons? Frigates or Fireball?
But fantasy elements aside, what is the rapier? Do we really believe that it’s exclusively meant to represent the renaissance and later rapier? That rapier became popular in the early 1500s, but it didn’t come out of nowhere, and its precursors are not at all different enough to merit different stats in a game like 5e.

idk, just seems like...if it’s a balance issue, say it’s a balance issue.

Rapiers are more modern, as you know, and a renaissance weapon. Other more modern items such as full plate armor and frigates aren't in our game either, nor do we have pistols or other gunpower weapons. Our fantasy setting is more up to about 1300-1400 in terms of our world. This is just our preference.

If 5E had a full plate armor with AC 20, we wouldn't have that either. Some people might not want it for balance, but it represents a level of evolution and craftsmanship that is not present in our setting.

I understand your point, because I find it odd when players want to use many of these things. When I see characters in a D&D game with two flint-lock pistols, I shudder because it doesn't fit my sense of what D&D fantasy is.

The fact it is also a balance issue just makes it easier to get rid of them.

 

[Coroc]

Oh, ok sure, that makes more sense. I just shrug my shoulders sometimes at how much love DEX got in 5e and how little STR got in comparison.

Yes that is also my impression. The same goes for INT vs. CHA. Imho Warlock or bard could have been keyed of INT, ok Bard maybe not so much but Warlock definitely. For Sorcerer with his "inborn" magic even CON would have been an option for main attribute.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes that is also my impression. The same goes for INT vs. CHA. Imho Warlock or bard could have been keyed of INT, ok Bard maybe not so much but Warlock definitely. For Sorcerer with his "inborn" magic even CON would have been an option for main attribute.

Yeah, we switched Sorcerer over to CON for our table--it just makes more sense to us. We also changed their saves to CON and INT, not CHA. As I've said in other threads, in 5E CHA became the mental-version love-child akin to DEX in the physical stats.