D&D 5E Missing weapons?

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

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]

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]

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)

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

 

[Fenris-77]

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)

Good lord no. The Rapier is already the bastard rules child of a DEX crazed game designer, it doesn't need any help.

 

[Coroc]

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?

 

[Fenris-77]

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]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.