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

[JonnyP71]

Yes, because if nothing else, a wide array of weapons conjures up the pseudo-medieval imagery I like in my fantasy. I loved the 1E/UA weapon lists for it, and peasants in my villages fought with Bill Hooks, Clubs, Spears - it did not matter that they would have been mechanically stronger using a Sword! Gnomes used picks and hammers. Dwarves use crossbows - in 1E they were very badly gimped! It... does...not....matter!!!!

In my currently 1E campaign we have a Monk whose preferred weapon is a Lasso, the Dwarf Warrior uses a Warhammer despite it being mechanically weaker than so many other options, we also have a Cleric fighting with a Quarterstaff - again in 1E the traditional clerical options of Mace or Flail would have been stronger, but they don't fit the image the player has of the character.

I like lots of weapons, and they don't have to be mechanically perfectly balanced. They just need to *feel* right.

 

[Oofta]

If you really wanted complex weapons you could easily just copy PathFinder's weapon list. Because who doesn't need to have a Bec de corbin and a Glaive-guisarme in their game? Oh, right, people that play a game that doesn't involve tweaking the mechanics of your player to get every ounce of specialization in pursuit of broken combinations.

I don't mean to sound overly snarky (sorry if I'm failing) but D&D is a game that tries to balance streamlined play with simpler mechanics. For the most part it works, and I don't have to remember that while a halberd and a horsechopper do the same damage, one has reach and the other can be used to trip. Which one does which? Well ... give me a few moments while I flip through the books ... and which book was the horsechopper in? And why doesn't a halberd have reach? It was a freakin' ax/spear thing on a 6 foot pole!

In any case, I'm ok with using dagger stats for my monk's shurikens and if I feel like there's a need to tweak weapons (having an option for heavier pull bows for example) it's easy enough to add in. That's the thing about complex systems - it's hard to take things away, it's a lot easier to add things in to the game if you feel the need.

 

[Imaro]

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.

You framed the "simple question" as the design team making a definite mistake that needed to be fixed...definitely came off as kind of hostile and demanding.


Anyway- I voted that I have no strong feelings either way. While I wouldn't mind more weapons with variety and uniqueness in weapon stats... unless they could make it so that someone who was going to pour over said stats and optimize would be at the same level of effectiveness as someone who picked a weapon for it's cool factor I'd have to pass. I have a mix of new more casual players and older hardcore players so unless they could balance that somehow I'd still use the simpler weapons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I dislike Mearls' idea, but it almost does what I want.

IMO, damage is the most boring way to differentiate weapons. Give me damage by class, technique, and ability, and let weapons be differentiated by properties/how they are used.

Also, he can kick rocks with that "when we change the name of the game...blah blah" tweet. He needs to remember than the people who play the game are more important than his personal artistic vision of what the game is supposed to be.

 

[Blue]

Heck, over half of the 5e table (not a long one compared to some editions) already doesn't get used by people who regularly use weapon attacks. You get a few "best" options that get used. Maybe some variety - 3 options identical except damage type where there is no clear winner so you might see variation (or just buying one of each).

I hear everyone asking for differentiation - for that to be valid, each point of differentiation needs to be a valid choice. Not that every build would use every weapon, but your points of differentiation have no clear winners in aggregate. Because otherwise the losers won't get played frequently and all you are doing is cluttering up your list. But they still need to be meaningful choices, otherwise your making a distinction without a difference and just cluttering up your lists.

Finally, detailed weapon lists can get in the way of concept. I want to play a spear and net gladiator. Well, if the spear sucks you either don't get to play your concept or you gimp yourself to play your concept.

To sum up:

• Don't put in sub-par weapons, they just clutter the list.
• Don't put in differentiation that has a clear winner or loser in the majority of cases, you're just creating sub-part weapons.
• Don't put in differentiation that doesn't actually make a meaningful change in how you play with that weapon. Otherwise it's clutter with little payoff.
• Let players reskin or build weapons from choices so mechanics doesn't handicap character concept.

You want a large weapon list, I'm fine with it as long as it meets the rules above. But I love 13th Age "Heavy or Martial, One handed" that you entirely describe yourself and let character differentiation come from other places.

 

[GMMichael]

A little torn on this one - as a character I find it critically important to use the exact, right tool for the job. As a player, I just want to roll one die and move on.

Mearls goes on to say . . .

D4 = light weaponsD6 = one-handed weaponsD8 = heavy weapons

Armor would've been -Leather = lightChain = mediumPlate = heavy

MM can get in line. I have to imagine that every other small press/indie system uses this.

 

[Gradine]

I voted the "meh" option. I loved reading about all the different polearms and what not in the AD&D PHB, but I don't really see how there's a need for that in 5e. Mearls' initial response was a bit flippant for someone whose job is ostensibly PR at this point, but his follow-up answer makes a degree of sense. Massive lists like PF are built for a specific type of play (optimization) that doesn't cater to everyone, and ends up creating smaller range of weapons in actual play as a few end up rising to the top (see: 4e's longswords) and everything else is so much page-filler or, worse, fodder for asinine "trap" conversations.

Meanwhile, damage by class means the weapon you use doesn't matter, which means it can be whatever the hell you want it to be. You don't need a massive list of weapons to have the kind of variety that would make even a 90's era Final Fantasy game blush. I understand that this type of design doesn't tickle every type of playstyle, but it certainly fits the "streamlined" paradigm of 5e much better. I don't think a D&D game could ever get away from weapon lists altogether (not even 4e was so bold in its design) but follow that paradigm, throw in a few suboptimal choices for more primitive Monster Manual baddies, and you're good to go. Really only the Rapier screws everything up in 5e; it should clearly be a d6 weapon, but that's an easy house rule fix. Just add a few words about "seriously, just re-skin these existing weapons for whatever the heck you want" (more strategically placed than in the Monk class write-up would have been preferable...) and you're good to go.

Here's the dirty secret; you don't need special rules for how to Trip with your whip or polearm #7c. Several classes have access to abilities that knock enemies prone. That's how you trip. A simple, streamlined RPG does not need any set of rules to differentiate a dagger from a shuriken, or a bastard sword from a katana, etc. And that's what 5e is.

 

[The Old Crow]

I would have liked a simple weapon system like Mike Mearl's suggested as the default, but a more complex weappn table included in the Player's Handbook as an option.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The default weapons table is just fine. It's up to the individual Tables and DMs to add variety through their own work, or use 3rd Party material. Kobold has some new weapons that look pretty interesting.

 

[ccs]

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.

Your not alone.
On one hand I don't have much use for 1es complete list of pole-arms. (And 1e is my favorite edition!).
On the other? The list I started with in Basic (1980) where the default was everything did d6 (varied damage dice sizes were an option!) was just too simplistic.
So what we have right now is OK.