D&D 5E Should the game have extensive weapon lists?

[Henry]

I have to confess, i do like crunchy tables and tables of weapons and armor. My background is in old AD&D so it's kind of a "first love" thing.

However, this is balanced by my belief that all weapons, even daggers and staves, should be deadlier than they are. A knife still kills. Personally i feel like all weapons should be closer in damage dice, but vary in other ways, for example, perhaps daggers get more attacks than spears or arming swords, but the bigger weapons strike first. Not sure, i've never bothered to express it more mechanically. It does a good enough job now, but having people dismiss daggers and darts out of hand just rubs me the wrong way because they're not so easily dismissed in real life (though gun of course still wins for speed, range, and damage dice )

 

[Valetudo]

Look I understand having a simple weapons and armor chart for basic, but Im not dming basic. And for mearls to say that is why I havent invested the amount of money this edition like I have the others.

 

[jayoungr]

I have a question that may sound snarky, so if it does, I apologize in advance. It's actually a serious question, so imagine me saying this in a very sincere tone.

3) Enchantments. This certainly does fall prey to the "no assumed magic items" argument, but you can flip through the DMG and see how many named/specialized swords there are versus spear options, and swords are definitely the victor.

Do you truly expect to be playing with a DM who, if using magic items in the game, will hand out special swords to your sword-wielding compatriots and tell you as the spear-wielder, "Sorry, I can't give you anything because the DMG doesn't have any magic spears in it"?

Or are you assuming you'll be playing with 3E-style magic shops, where the DM says "Okay, this shop has any magic item in the DMG up to Very Rare quality--but that's all"?

I mean, it sounds to me like you're saying if you wield a spear, you will probably not get a magic version of it, and that just doesn't seem like an obvious assumption to me.

 

[Imaro]

Look I understand having a simple weapons and armor chart for basic, but Im not dming basic. And for mearls to say that is why I havent invested the amount of money this edition like I have the others.

So are you mad that we dont have extensive and complex weapons in the phb... or are you mad Mearls responded in kind to a snarky demand?

 

[schnee]

[video]https://youtu.be/2Dj5fWYvSx8?t=48s[/video]

It just doesn't feel like D&D without extensive pole arm lists!

 

[Valetudo]

So are you mad that we dont have extensive and complex weapons in the phb... or are you mad Mearls responded in kind to a snarky demand?

Cant it be both?

 

[Imaro]

Cant it be both?

Don't see a reason why not. Though I do find it odd that you're mad at the way Mearls chose to answer but not at the way the "question" was asked. But hey to each his own...

As for the weapons...I think they were pretty upfront about complexity being kept to a minimum as a design goal... so I don't get the anger about that either... but again to each his own

 

[Eubani]

Don't see a reason why not. Though I do find it odd that you're mad at the way Mearls chose to answer but not at the way the "question" was asked. But hey to each his own...

As for the weapons...I think they were pretty upfront about complexity being kept to a minimum as a design goal... so I don't get the anger about that either... but again to each his own

My anger stems from the double standard of More complex weapons/armour = Too much overhead, whereas More spells = No problem.

 

[Imaro]

My anger stems from the double standard of More complex weapons/armour = Too much overhead, whereas More spells = No problem.

More...and more complex... are 2 different things. Are they creating more spells or more complex spells... also again we've seen their willingness to address complex weapons via feats in UA... so painting a picture where they are not looking into or experimenting with added complexity around weapons is being disingenuous.

But hey if you' want to be angry about a double standard that doesnt really exist... more power to you

 

[Eubani]

More...and more complex... are 2 different things. Are they creating more spells or more complex spells... also again we've seen their willingness to address complex weapons via feats in UA... so painting a picture where they are not looking into or experimenting with added complexity around weapons is being disingenuous.

But hey if you' want to be angry about a double standard that doesnt really exist... more power to you

So are you saying some simple properties are too complex? Sorry but players who use martial characters are not as dumb as some people and designers think. I am talking about simple things like maybe an extra 1d6 on a critical or 1's on damage dice become 2's for example, but if you wish to pretend that martial and magic are kept to same or similar standards you can keep on thinking that. Nothing you said will change that martial will receive little else bar the rare feat that all have access to and spellcasters lists will continue to grow thus increasing their power, agency and utiltity. Enjoy the view under the sand.