D&D 5E (2014) Should the game have extensive weapon lists?

[CydKnight]

It is interesting to me that this is only 1 page so far as I type this and there is already a wide range of responses to the OP. This is why I like the game. Though it's mechanics won't please everyone, the rules are open to being adapted to different tastes.

As for the topic at hand, I personally have no issue with the current list. I agree with Cap'n Kobold that it is simple and seems to touch on all categories. In this way you can still customize a weapon such as a dart becoming a throwing star. Customizing the list further and even allowing additional damage dice and such for customized weapons can be totally up to the DM working with the player to create a weapon that works for their game.

 

[akr71]

Hey, I'm the only one who voted "no strong feeling wither way"... I'm that guy. I don't know whether I should feel special or outcast... I have no strong feeling either way about that either! I am a lost soul, adrift in a sea of definitive opinions.

Not anymore While I voted "no strong feeling..." really I'm torn. I like the simplicity of the 5e weapons table - I DM for a lot of relatively new players who only know 5e and were able to jump in with relative ease. I do miss being able to select from a larger list of weapons and have them feel different. I mean, mechanically a battleaxe and longsword are identical - 1d8/1d10 versatile, slashing. This is more of a concern for those martial & swashbuckler type characters who may rely on a specific weapon or two in order to practice their craft.

However, I hope this is where the "Midway" rules expansion steps in. I was really intrigued by the June 2016 Unearthed Arcana on Feats - if some of these make it into "Midway" it would go a long way toward making some weapons stand out.

 

[jasper]

[DND][/DND]My list.
Spell caster does d4 with bump for two handed.
Sneaky types does d6 with a bump for two handed.
Warrior types does d8 with bump.
With multiclassers take best damage if that rank is 2 levels higher. If not take worse.
edit to answer latter question
Yes all weapon type damage base on class.

 

[Eubani]

I was the one in that Tweet. I was not so much after more weapons more separation in weapons and armor because as I said due to few being obviously better most of the lists need not exist. I believe his answer shortsighted and I am sure he will have no issue spitting out more and more spells so does that mean that spells will be added to the game title?

 

[Waller]

I was the one in that Tweet. I was not so much after more weapons more separation in weapons and armor because as I said due to few being obviously better most of the lists need not exist. I believe his answer shortsighted and I am sure he will have no issue spitting out more and more spells so does that mean that spells will be added to the game title?

His response struck me as quite hostile. And some of his followers' responses were very hostile - "omg. Egg demolished." and "If you dont like it, then why are you playing it ? make your own instead !"

 

[Eubani]

His response struck me as quite hostile. And some of his followers' responses were very hostile - "omg. Egg demolished." and "If you dont like it, then why are you playing it ? make your own instead !"

That is why I didn't bother replying. It is no secret that there are several main choices on each list and the rest is fodder, running off his reply the game will be changed to Spells & Spellcasters.

 

[Horwath]

My list.
Spell caster does d4 with bump for two handed.
Sneaky types does d6 with a bump for two handed.
Warrior types does d8 with bump.
With multiclassers take best damage if that rank is 2 levels higher. If not take worse.

That would be for all types of weapons?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

His response struck me as quite hostile. And some of his followers' responses were very hostile - "omg. Egg demolished." and "If you dont like it, then why are you playing it ? make your own instead !"

To be fair, it was a rather hostile question, with definite overtones of "Your design choice was wrong. I know better. You should change it to this." I saw his response as a rather lighthearted way of trying to defuse it.
The follower responses are just proof that no matter which side of an opinion you stand, there will be jerks on your side as well as theirs.

I'm fairly sure that they have specifically addressed that issue, although I couldn't say whether it was before or after that tweet. The reason for suboptimal weapons like the trident in the weapons table is because while the trident isn't a very good weapon, some monsters for example use it.

Likewise with some of the armour types. Hide isn't a very good armour for a PC, with their assumed access to relatively large amounts of money and technology. However a lot of humanoids wear it because its something that they are able to make, and its better than trying to bounce spears off your abs. (Unless you have barbarian levels of course.)

 

[Eubani]

To be fair, it was a rather hostile question, with definite overtones of "Your design choice was wrong. I know better. You should change it to this." I saw his response as a rather lighthearted way of trying to defuse it.
The follower responses are just proof that no matter which side of an opinion you stand, there will be jerks on your side as well as theirs.

I'm fairly sure that they have specifically addressed that issue, although I couldn't say whether it was before or after that tweet. The reason for suboptimal weapons like the trident in the weapons table is because while the trident isn't a very good weapon, some monsters for example use it.

Likewise with some of the armour types. Hide isn't a very good armour for a PC, with their assumed access to relatively large amounts of money and technology. However a lot of humanoids wear it because its something that they are able to make, and its better than trying to bounce spears off your abs. (Unless you have barbarian levels of course.)

I meant it as a simple question nothing hostile but under the logic given by many all the the spell lists should be trimmed to about a dozen spells. I know that will never happen nor would I wish it to but damn I only would of liked to see more differentiation between existing weapons and armour not an addition of 100's more like many are stating, you would think I was demanding virgin sacrifices.

 

[Horwath]

I meant it as a simple question nothing hostile but under the logic given by many all the the spell lists should be trimmed to about a dozen spells. I know that will never happen nor would I wish it to but damn I only would of liked to see more differentiation between existing weapons and armour not an addition of 100's more like many are stating, you would think I was demanding virgin sacrifices.

Problem with spells is that they are not modular and very fixed in their effects.

I.E. Fireball. Why not simply energy ball. You create a 20ft radius energy burst up to 200ft away. Pick energy type from Acid,Cold,Fire,Lightning or Thunder damage.

Same for burning hands, scorching ray, cone of cold, wall of fire, lightning bolt, Melf's acid arrow, etc....

Or instead of Cure wounds spell: Manipulate life force spell. Heal living or undead target for 1d8/spell level or inflict 1d8 or radiant/necrotic damage.


As for weapons, players want to have variety in weapons choices.

Now melee weapons have traits: light, finesse, reach, thrown, 2handed, heavy.

And there should be a weapon for every logical combination. With damage decreasing as more of beneficial traits are added.