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

[discosoc]

I've always preferred a vague weapon system with the freedom for players to skin their choice however they want. It makes balancing easier and removes min/max exploit type things, while allowing for any character fantasy.

 

[Shiroiken]

I feel that weapon choice should matter, and I would like a bit more differentiation between them. There are many ways this has been done (such as AD&D's damage vs size, 3E's crit range, or 4E's attack modifier), and new ways this could have been done (fighting styles, feats, class/racial abilities, even backgrounds). 5E has (currently) chosen to ignore this, trying to hit the difference between those who like 13th age style and those who desire more realism (and appealing to neither, IME).

Fortunately, it's not hard to houserule for either style. I've added several weapons to my game, and I've added a rule from the playtest that makes non-versatile weapons more useful (small characters MUST use versatile weapons in two hands, but gain the benefit as normal). Admittedly, some weapons are redundant (such as the glaive and halberd are in the PHB), and I've combined those to save space (such as the scimitar/sabre/cutlass, longsword/broadsword/bastard sword, and claymore/greatsword).

 

[Raith5]

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.


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

What I find interesting in this exchange is how constrained MM is by the history and legacy of D&D. It is kind of 'I have thought about X and Y, but I would have the change the name of the damn game if I implemented them'. It must not be a a whole lot of fun to be a designer in game where the design space is so constrained.

FWIW I would like more differences and tradeoff between various weapons, not necessarily more weapons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Would you be okay with "one handed martial d8 slashing versatile (1d10), describe how you like?" instead of "longsword"? So for one character it's a longsword, another it's a short razor whip, another it's a bronze spear, depending on their concept and the setting?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do this as it is, but I do prefer a decent amount of mechanical differentiation.

For me, and most of my players, customized mechanical differentiation enhances roleplaying to a noticeable, and very enjoyable, degree. There is a point of simplicity where we begin to feel that the rules do more to hamper us than to help us, and 5e weapons are just complex enough for us, most of the time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel that weapon choice should matter, and I would like a bit more differentiation between them. There are many ways this has been done (such as AD&D's damage vs size, 3E's crit range, or 4E's attack modifier), and new ways this could have been done (fighting styles, feats, class/racial abilities, even backgrounds).

IMO, having different attack modifiers was the worst thing about 4e's otherwise excellent weapons list. The properties like Brutal, and High Crit, were great, though.

And I hate how small people interact with weapons in 4e and 5e. The idea that a Halfling culture couldn't develop polearms that are light and balanced for them, with the same effective reach as the shorter Reach weapons, is just inexcusably silly. Also, claymores aren't that heavy, and could be designed with a little more taper for friendlier balance point, without noticeable loss in power. Or not noticeable enough to warrant using a longsword stats to model a Halfling model.

They fixed in eventually with small specific two hand and reach weapons, but 5e needs to do the same.

 

[mellored]

Only if they have significant differences between them. We don't need 10 different ways to do 1d8 damage. I'd even argue that there's no need for slashing vs bludgeoning vs piercing, at least not as the game currently stands.


Now if they each had a unique property or maneuver associated with them (like I made with this class). Then sure. But only after we fill up the weapons we use now.

 

[jaelis]

I voted yes, but I have to say it seems better to have a minimalist system where you can houserule in something complicated that you like, as opposed to a complicated system you have to houserule to simplify. The later can be hard because the complications tend to connect to other parts of the game.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Would you be okay with "one handed martial d8 slashing versatile (1d10), describe how you like?" instead of "longsword"? So for one character it's a longsword, another it's a short razor whip, another it's a bronze spear, depending on their concept and the setting?

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.

 

[Blue]

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.

Interesting. To me, in fantasy or superhero games the differentiation is the person regardless of mundane gear, while for SF or cyberpunk games the kit takes on it's own story importance.

(Note that magic items, super-inventor tech, alien superweapons and the like aren't "mundane". But Conan can kill you with a sword, with a knife, or with a club equally well.)

 

[Eubani]

I think Optional Weapon properties are the way to go but it seems whilst the designers are happy to churn out spells any further effort on weapons and armor are and I quote "Too much overhead". Once again non magic martial classes will be the red headed step child.