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

[Imaro]

This is a false equivalence. Adding more spells quite clearly complicates the "weapon" of spellcasting by virtue of adding more options.

How does having more spells raise the complexity of the spellcasting rules? It adds options sure but the complexity isnt changing unless said spell is cast in a totally different way than every other spell. The same way adding a new weapon doesnt add complexity to weapon use.

 

[Lanliss]

Sure you could, just like you could bump up the dice size for fighting-types or any other number of DM fixes that aren't even hard. My assertion was that the base RAW game favors swords* (and I definitely feel that it does), and that there are indeed DMs who play it "by the book", either for a sense of novelty or simply a misguided notion of that being how the game or AP is to be run. To reiterate, if I had my wish then it'd be a moot discussion in the first place because all weapons would be reasonably balanced against each other from the get go, or at least have a few valuable niche applications.

*Moreso with my previous arguments that most campaigns will have magic items based on their prevalence in virtually all APs. If you have no magic items at all then obviously the swords are less favored, since they don't have all the legacy enchantment stuff.

Ah, yes. I can see that point of view. I was simply confused by the idea of someone not changing equipment up sometimes, to suit their players or to make it more interesting. As that is outside RAW, it is not what you were talking about, so apologies.

 

[Delazar]

Do you then think that magic should also be simplified? If no, why do you feel that one deserves to have depth of choice but not the other?

Yes, that would be great too! We really don't need 10 different spells doing more or less the same thing, just changing damage type, or shape. The "higher lever slot" mechanic was a great improvement, but I would have gone even further. Like having a "healing" spell that included also restoration, resurrection, regeneration, depending on the slot used.

 

[Delazar]

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.

The reason I haven't invested the amount of money I had in the other editions is simply that there aren't enough products to buy. And I'm actually quite happy with this! Now I can use my RPG budget to buy other RPGs, or minis, or digital tools.

 

[Valetudo]

The reason I haven't invested the amount of money I had in the other editions is simply that there aren't enough products to buy. And I'm actually quite happy with this! Now I can use my RPG budget to buy other RPGs, or minis, or digital tools.

honesly other than the core three, I have no interest purchasing any 5e products so far. Whereas I bought almost everything for the older editions.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I like a more real world approach. Weapon groups works for this as the techniques for swords varies only by significant change in design. A langmesser, falchion, sabre, cutlass and scimitar aren't so fundamentally different in how they're wielded that it warrants anything more than a slight variation in their secondary features. Most polearms (including montantes/zweihanders) have a lot of similarities in how they're wielded as well. A club, a mace and a warhammer really aren't different enough to warrant separate proficiencies either, and so on.

 

[Gradine]

In some games, sure. But not in D&D. Weapons are tools, and I prefer a game where a my character chooses the right weapon for the circumstances, as opposed to one where the choice of weapon is stylistic.

Everyone knows you only ever really need two tools: if it's moving when it shouldn't, hit it with a sword; if it's not moving when it should, have the sorcerer cast grease on it.

 

[Gadget]

The problem with equating weapons with spell casting is that spell casting has a much wider range of effects than weapons; it is not that difficult to differentiate one spell from another. Each spell has is basically a self contained rules package with some common mechanical framework (level, range, duration, concentration, etc.). Weapons have a more difficult time with D&D's abstract combat system, making it so the weapons had more differentiating factors would by necessity complicate the combat system. Adding a new spell doesn't really complicate the spell casting system; it may cause more analysis paralysis on the part of the player, but that is somewhat different.

Granted, as endless debates here and elsewhere show, it is very possible for the spell casting system to break down into one obvious 'best choice' for a given level and situation (ex. Fireball in combat). But even then, there are times and situations when you want Dispel Magic, whereas the differentiating factors with weapons tend to be less extreme (here come some skeletons, bust out the mace; need to cut the rope, put the mace away). Spells also tend to be less bound to the pseudo-reality checks that weapons usually have to abide by.

All that being said, there is nothing in this that hinders one from having an AD&D style (or even more detailed) weapon list with many of the listed weapons having largely the same stats. That way the choice between a Bec de corbin and a Bill-Guisarme is largely flavor.

 

[BookBarbarian]

How does having more spells raise the complexity of the spellcasting rules? It adds options sure but the complexity isnt changing unless said spell is cast in a totally different way than every other spell. The same way adding a new weapon doesnt add complexity to weapon use.

For some this might be true. For most even, but I have seen players look at that spell list and just get completely lost in all the options. There is something to be said for keeping some things simplistic.

Getting more weapons in a UA or an Official or 3rd party supplement would be fine, but I wouldn't want to replace the PHB/SRD weapons table.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For some this might be true. For most even, but I have seen players look at that spell list and just get completely lost in all the options.

Sure. It doesn't help that the spells aren't separated by class/level, so you have to look over the list, then look up each spell, interspersed among other spells you don't get. For prepped casters, the complexity does impact casting, because you're choosing spells every day. For other casters, it's experienced mostly at chargen/level up.

Weapon choice is comparable to the latter, you generally pick the weapons you'll favor at chargen to match your Combat Style (if you don't get a combat style, chances are you have a shorter weapon list, anyway), and change them up only if you find a nice magical one of a different type.