D&D 5E Class Groups and Weaponry

[Frostmarrow]

I don't know if the sorting of the op is necessarily the best breakdown. I am not objecting to the idea, itself. All of the light/medium/heavy, simple/martial, piercing/bludgeoning/slashing gets a bit too much/crazy for me. I mean, they can make for a nice shorthand, i.e. "Rogues use simple weapons" or what not. But then the player is left to have to go look up what the eff a "simple weapon" is.

I'd go with something like this:
Warriors: Any weapon. Period, end, simple. They're the "best at fighting" classes, they can use/train in whatever weapons they want.

"Rogues" [I simply refuse to give "tricksters" any more traction]: Dagger, Club, Hand Axe, Hand or normal/"Light" Crossbow, Scimitar, Short or Long bow, Short or Long sword, Sling, Spear, Staff. Now if that becomes the "light/simple" weapons group, fine. But for ease of play, I would agree with the op that they should be listed out separately first and then presented as "these are the light and medium weapons group".

Priests: "Priests are severely limited in their weapon options as only certain faiths and orders train in combat."
--Clerics: Club/cudgel, Flail, Mace, Morningstar, Sling, Staff, War Hammer...with a "Some Clerics are permitted the use of other weapons, including swords, spears or bows. It depends on the deity and specialty of the cleric. A god of battle might allow swords or axes. A god of hunting allows bows. A pacifist goddess of healing might not allow anything except staff!"
--Druids: Club/cudgel, Dagger, Scimitar, Sickle, Sling, Spear, Staff
--[if it goes in here by virtue of "Priests are severely limited in their weapon options..."] Monk: Club/cudgel, Dagger, Hand Axe, Scimitar, Short or Long bow, Short or Long Sword, Sickle, Sling, Spear, Staff (which, actually, if available weapons is to be a condition of one's class Group then that's another mark for these guys going under Rogue)

Mages: Dagger, Staff.

What if you get weapon type by class and some feats include a weapon of choice?

Fighter (archer) get all slashing and (bows).

 

[Mistwell]

There are a lot of simple RPGs out there, D&D hasn't been one of them for 30+ years, and doesn't need to be.

This I very much disagree wit. A Basic edition is essential to garnering new players. The size of the rulebooks are simply far too discouraging for new players. I genuinely think they're building just that - a version of the game with no skills/backgrounds, and no feats.

However, I don't think you need classes tied to weapons for it to be really simple.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I wonder how you feel about making ties between class groups and weapon types. My suggestion is the following:

Warriors favor slashing weapons; axes, scimitars and, swords.
Tricksters favor piercing weapons; spears, rapiers, and short swords.
Priests favor bludgeoning weapons; maces, fists, and clubs.
Mages favor implements; orbs, wands and rods.

...Why?

 

[the Jester]

I wonder how you feel about making ties between class groups and weapon types.

Basically, I absolutely hate the idea.

EDIT: Sorry, but it seems completely arbitrary and senseless to me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Basically, I absolutely hate the idea.

EDIT: Sorry, but it seems completely arbitrary and senseless to me.

That makes two of us. Not a fan of class groups, per se, but aggregating class features like weapon proficiency at the group level will succeed in achieving 4E's flaw ... that classes feel the same when they shouldn't.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not on board with the initial idea, but I very much support getting rid of the simple / martial divide. I also like weapon groups, for what it's worth (axes, polearms, etc.).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This I very much disagree wit. A Basic edition is essential to garnering new players. The size of the rulebooks are simply far too discouraging for new players. I genuinely think they're building just that - a version of the game with no skills/backgrounds, and no feats.

Let's just agree to disagree on this. Like I said, I came to AD&D as a 10-11 year old. What I didn't say was that I did so with a whole bunch of other newbies my age. I've also initiated kids that age into 3.X without difficulty.

I've done likewise with teens and HERO.

Personally, while I have played and enjoyed some very simple RPGs- like the VERY stripped-down TFT/ITL- I have yet to find an intro version of an RPG I liked. I just never bother with them anymore. If I have players struggling with the rules, I either help them out personally or have another experienced player do so.

 

[Derren]

As others have already asked: Why?

It is sensible to group weapons for feat purposes etc, but why should a class be limited to only axes? Weapon restrictions should go anyway, except maybe a simple/martial divide.

And to this "Make it more simple" movement, I refuse to believe that the average PnP player is so simple minded that he can't read rules, nor do I think that someone who refuses to read rules will play PnP games anyway.
Making it more and more simple will not bring in more players, but instead will drive them away as there are other games out there if you want it simple.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I also like weapon groups, for what it's worth (axes, polearms, etc.).

I'm actually OK with this approach, depending on how it is executed. I'd combine that with greater choice for classes:

So, for primary warrior classes (fighter, ranger, etc): proficiency with all weapon groups.
For secondary warrior classes (cleric, rogue): Pick any two weapon groups with which you have proficiency.
For other classes (wizard, sorcerer) Pick any two specific weapons, or one weapon group, with which you have proficiency.
As a feat, gain a proficiency in a weapon group.

That way there's a distinction between warrior skill, but plenty of flexibility to allow a player to tailor a character concept.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A little bit of 2Ed, a little bit of 3.X- that's workable.