5E Missing weapons?

Undrave

Hero
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...
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
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

Legend
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

Explorer
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.
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
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.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

jmartkdr2

Explorer
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,
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
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. :)
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
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.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah a finely balanced polearms with a thin, lighter, blade at the end would not be “heavy”, and I’d make it finesse.

Of course, I also make bows finesse.

if it doesn’t feel absurd to me or my players, and it enhances fun, it’s a good change.
 

jmartkdr2

Explorer
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.
That makes sense, and I don't disagree. But having it be one-handed but needing two hands while not mounted also means it interacts with other features oddly:

It can be dual-wielded with a feat, but not used for a power attack (or cleave)
It can be used by 1st-level hexblades with the Hex Warrior feature, even though glaives cannot
It works with the dueling fighting style, and potentially two-weapon fighting, but not great weapon fighting.

While none of these things are mechanically a real problem (except maybe highly incentivising 1st-level hexblades to use lances while on foot), they all feel wrong. Because the fantasy of the lance is much closer to a greatsword or greataxe: it's about big, mighty blows that fell a giant, not deftly finessing one or two to numbly cut through the battlefield.

Then again, I could say the same thing about halfling lancers - it's not that they do too much damage, it's that the feel silly. (especially when dual-wielding)

(I'm not arguing that dual-wielding lances is impossible in the real world, although I would argue that it doesn't fit in with lance tropes.)
 

Undrave

Hero
5E struck a really good balance with most systems but the weapon chart got overly simplied for my tastes.
I dunno, I think it's simple enough, even if a few combination of features are missing but it feels mostly complete if you consider all the weapon properties we have.

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.
I'm not one for complexifying systems like the weapons... That said I really like this concept because there's just not enough fun things that interact with the Critical Hit concept! What's the point of being a crit-fishing Champion if all you're getting out of it is like...4-5 more damage or something? Really cool idea!

Yeah a finely balanced polearms with a thin, lighter, blade at the end would not be “heavy”, and I’d make it finesse.

Of course, I also make bows finesse.

if it doesn’t feel absurd to me or my players, and it enhances fun, it’s a good change.
Like a Chinese Kung Fu spear with a flexible staff!
 

Coroc

Hero
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...
Houserule a rapier to have reach. (It has, in fact, due to being as long as a bastard sword and fighting style using a lot of lunges)
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
Houserule a rapier to have reach. (It has, in fact, due to being as long as a bastard sword and fighting style using a lot of lunges)
Fencers pair off at distance (easily 10 feet or more), but their attacks are still only within 5 or so feet. The lunging would be their move in. I only fenced for two seasons of competition in college, but that's how I see it.

Also, as the only d8 finesse weapon, they get used way too much already IMO by optimizers. The battle master's maneuver Lunching Attack models that move.

If you really want to model a fencer's lunge, I would more house-rule the rapier allows a character to use their bonus action to extend their reach 5 feet for the next attack they make with that weapon.
 

Coroc

Hero
Fencers pair off at distance (easily 10 feet or more), but their attacks are still only within 5 or so feet. The lunging would be their move in. I only fenced for two seasons of competition in college, but that's how I see it.

Also, as the only d8 finesse weapon, they get used way too much already IMO by optimizers. The battle master's maneuver Lunching Attack models that move.

If you really want to model a fencer's lunge, I would more house-rule the rapier allows a character to use their bonus action to extend their reach 5 feet for the next attack they make with that weapon.
Well a rapier is a far more modern weapon and probably the essence of all sorts of swords. While (as many swords) it was designed mainly as a civilians weapon and sign of status, it was stable enough to parry greatswords and halberds without breaking. If you and @Fenris-77 feel it is already overpowered, then maybe you should not allow it in your campaigns.
I do not see it breaking anything in OPs case, if used by a warlord, since this characters class usefulness surely should not come from his martial prowess, should it?
 
Overpowered isn't exactly the word I'd use. My problem with the Rapier is that it's a finesse weapon that does a d8 damage, which means there is essentially no reason for a fighter to go STR unless he wants to go polearm or double handed. It's kind of silly IMO.
 

Coroc

Hero
Overpowered isn't exactly the word I'd use. My problem with the Rapier is that it's a finesse weapon that does a d8 damage, which means there is essentially no reason for a fighter to go STR unless he wants to go polearm or double handed. It's kind of silly IMO.
Yea but a fighter should go two handed, archer or sword and board tbh, and if he wants some versatility in that STR is the better compromise since ranged attacks are contextual.

Your dex based fighter is easily outperformed by a rogue, especially a swashbuckler from SCAG.
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
Well a rapier is a far more modern weapon and probably the essence of all sorts of swords. While (as many swords) it was designed mainly as a civilians weapon and sign of status, it was stable enough to parry greatswords and halberds without breaking. If you and @Fenris-77 feel it is already overpowered, then maybe you should not allow it in your campaigns.
I do not see it breaking anything in OPs case, if used by a warlord, since this characters class usefulness surely should not come from his martial prowess, should it?
I can't speak for @Fenris-77 , but given it is a more modern weapon we don't allow it. As I pointed out, giving it reach only increases its demand in yet more builds... given how few weapons see utilization, making the rapier even more appealing doesn't seem like a good idea IMO, but ultimately tastes vary so if it makes you happy and fills a need, more power to you.
 

Advertisement

Top