D&D 5E Missing weapons?

[Fenris-77]

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.

You're missing the point. For any 1 handed weapon using fighter, even sword and board, there is almost no reason to go STR. DEX gets you the same hit and damage as a longsword, comparable armour, better stealth, better ranged attacks, and better initiative. And I don't think the Fighter should have to go 2hW or archer for mechanical reasons. Saying "play a rogue instead" is also not particularly helpful.

Anyway, that's my game and my take on it. If giving the rapier reach gives you feels you should go ahead and do that.

 

[Undrave]

Just give Reach to the Trident, now it'll see use.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I'm going to agree, The one recommended in the OP is pretty much just straight up admitting that weapons are meaningless beyond damage dice & leaning into it rather than accepting one of the few cases where that is not the case. Already you can say that the spear is a reach weapon. If your set on adding something new it should feel new & interesting like pathfinder's bladed scarf

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I swap the rapier out for estoc. 1d6 piercing, finesse, versatile (2d4).

 

[Undrave]

I'm going to agree, The one recommended in the OP is pretty much just straight up admitting that weapons are meaningless beyond damage dice & leaning into it rather than accepting one of the few cases where that is not the case. Already you can say that the spear is a reach weapon. If your set on adding something new it should feel new & interesting like pathfinder's bladed scarf

Weapons ARE basically meaningless beyond damage type and damage dice. There's very few feats that bothers to interact with their attributes and even less class features that care about anything but if the weapon is melee or not, or two-handed or not.

I just find it weird how there's no middle ground with reach: you're either doing pitiful whip damage or massive glaive damage. There's a lack of subtlety that you don't find anywhere else in the weapons table that is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly fine to cover pretty much everything else you want... Even if its a little bland.

 

[tetrasodium]

Weapons ARE basically meaningless beyond damage type and damage dice. There's very few feats that bothers to interact with their attributes and even less class features that care about anything but if the weapon is melee or not, or two-handed or not.

I just find it weird how there's no middle ground with reach: you're either doing pitiful whip damage or massive glaive damage. There's a lack of subtlety that you don't find anywhere else in the weapons table that is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly fine to cover pretty much everything else you want... Even if its a little bland.

Yes and it bothers me to no end that after making damage type nearly irrelevant for all purposes other than "is this nonmagical bludgeoning piercing or slash... or something else?" they stripped out every subjective choice like crit ranfge/,ultiplier/etc to implement the overly streamlined weapons as is in 5e.

 

[Undrave]

Yes and it bothers me to no end that after making damage type nearly irrelevant for all purposes other than "is this nonmagical bludgeoning piercing or slash... or something else?" they stripped out every subjective choice like crit ranfge/,ultiplier/etc to implement the overly streamlined weapons as is in 5e.

In 4e you at least had some weapons more accurate than others. Even though they didn't differentiate by weapon damage types, you also had High Crit, Defensive and Brutal weapons as additional wrinkles to consider.

But, if they intend to go meaningless combinations of properties and damage dice, they should go all in and fill in the grid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

I’d rather drop it’s damage to d6, give it a lunging trait (along with the spear and the great sword) that increases reach by 5ft on your next attack, except that so much stuff uses the bonus action as is that that’s a terrible fix.

maybe use a disproportionate amount of movement to lunge? Like, use half your movement to extend your reach by 5ft with a piercing weapon or a greatsword?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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.

 

[Coroc]

You're missing the point. For any 1 handed weapon using fighter, even sword and board, there is almost no reason to go STR. DEX gets you the same hit and damage as a longsword, comparable armour, better stealth, better ranged attacks, and better initiative. And I don't think the Fighter should have to go 2hW or archer for mechanical reasons. Saying "play a rogue instead" is also not particularly helpful.

Anyway, that's my game and my take on it. If giving the rapier reach gives you feels you should go ahead and do that.

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.