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

[Dualazi]

I don't share the objection to "sub-optimal" weapons. Some weapons are better than others, just like you'd expect.

Except not like you’d expect. D&D already threw realism out the window by embracing its anachronisms, so the options that are available need to be meaningful. Appealing to history as to the effectiveness of weapons is moot, since there was never a time where all those weapons and armors were used concurrently.

NPCs can use them. Maybe those bandits could only get crappy weapons. Maybe when the PCs break out of the jail cell, the only gear they can grab their hands on is a pile of unusual weapons. Maybe that religious cult uses these ceremonial weapons rather than the most optimal weapon. Maybe in some campaigns or settings certain weapons are more common than others.

Maybe Bandits can have their HP/stats altered so they don’t have support a blasé weapon list.

Maybe the PCs having to make do with non-magical weapons is punishment enough, to say nothing of other gear they might have had.

The religious and campaign constraints are valid, sure, but they’re not relevant to the design of the base game, either.

Point is, I feel for people like Blue who want to make a spear fighter, only to find that the spear is pretty bad weapon and has nothing to really bring to the table, niche or otherwise. Likewise, I’m tired of seeing rapiers everywhere I go. I have 2 people using them in my current group, and that could easily become 3. When a weapon is that dominant, it’s typically a sign of a problem.

 

[Thurmas]

Since so many others are submitting solutions, why not. I've had this table made for a while. I've had a couple issues with players and weapons, namely because of issues with the rapier, spear and Greatsword/Greataxe (2d6 vs 1d12). I'm a firm believer that the stats of a weapon shouldn't dictate it being chosen over character flavor. I've been tempted to use this in my next campaign.

I like it because it standardizes everything based on what it does. It also widens the range of the weapons a little more. Everything can be calculated based on how its supposed to be used in game, and nothing stands out as being particularly better then anything else. Many weapons get a slight bump. Any weapon that doesn't have the light, finesse, or two handed property is versatile. The scimitar moves to martial weapons to compliment the rapier. The spear gets a little damage bump. The only hiccup I've had is a few weapons that also deserve the thrown property, such as the spear. It may not be perfect, but I think it is a small improvement on 5E weapons, although overall I'm generally happy with 5E weapons.

 

[Roadkill101]

TL/DR: I voted no. Mostly because I take the poll to mean: weapons lists with each item having unique damage die. Long or extensive lists are cool for show and tell with pictures of each item or as it suits my needs anyway.

I've house-ruled that weapons do damage by how wielded; 1-H a d6, 2-H a d8. For medium sized more or less humanoid bipeds. Classes falling under the Fighter Archetype use the next larger die. Bump down or up a die type per size scale (so haflings and small characters will be screwed over a bit, intentionally so to some degree, if I allowed a permanent large sized character at my table they would get a boon, so there is room for some swingy-ness to be possible in regards to balance). Hurled weapons are considered 1-handed while propelled weapons (or muscle-power assisted launched projectiles i.e. slings and atlatls) are 2-handed. Improvised weapons do a die type lower as well. Any bonus or penalty modifiers to damage only come from strength.

I also use weapon proficiency slots for weapons. Maybe I'm part Grognard or something.

Mostly I like weapons choice be meaningful and for fluff reasons. So I modified how weapon damage was from the original model, keeping it fairly simple. It seems to be fairly balanced so far.

 

[Sadras]

IMHO, D&D should also get rid of martial/simple/racial weapons categories.

IF they want some racial flavor to weapons it can be some special trick that can be done with the weapon, increased range, increased damage, extra weapon trait, etc...

That is my feeling. The Westeros RPG follows this system for weapons/armour and so this way, it can offer a richer tool-space for the DM when creating masterwork equipment with unique qualities/traits.

However I recognise that this is not everyone's cup of tea. Personally I think they should have gone simpler with the weapons/armour and remove the non-options (redundant or useless because better options actually exist).

Then add the weapons/armours with traits as a variant add-on for those that want that level of detail.

 

[Shasarak]

And the best thing about that comment is that you can re-purpose it for anything that you dont want to do.

Make a Warlord class? Not until they change the name from Dungeons and Dragons!

 

[schnee]

It's not hard to have one 'class' of weapon with a bunch of different names.

It's also fine to have some weapons with multiple damage types - i.e. a short sword could be slashing and piercing.

I would be cool seeing something like this:

Short Sword (Gladius, Scimitar)

 

[Imaro]

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.

So much this.

Wait am I imaging it or didn't we get a UA with feats designed specifically around weapon use?

EDIT: Which because they are an optional system are probably the best way to go for adding weapon complexity/differentiation.

 

[Spookykid]

if crits didn't double the dice from riders like sneak attack and smite, you could go back to the 3ed 19-29 X2 or 20 X3 crits. That was balanced, more crits or bigger crits, players choice, was fun that way.

 

[akr71]

Wait am I imaging it or didn't we get a UA with feats designed specifically around weapon use?

EDIT: Which because they are an optional system are probably the best way to go for adding weapon complexity/differentiation.

Yes, back in June. I agree that is likely the best route to take since the majority of characters that will want to take them will be the ones that rely on their weapon skills in combat.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Except not like you’d expect. D&D already threw realism out the window by embracing its anachronisms, so the options that are available need to be meaningful. Appealing to history as to the effectiveness of weapons is moot, since there was never a time where all those weapons and armors were used concurrently.

D&D physics/biomechanics etc are generally pretty similar to the real world until magic gets involved. D&D setting history and setting development is generally all over the place compared to the real world.

Maybe Bandits can have their HP/stats altered so they don’t have support a blasé weapon list.

Maybe the PCs having to make do with non-magical weapons is punishment enough, to say nothing of other gear they might have had.

Isn't magic item distribution down to the DM mostly? 5e is designed so PCs don't need magical weapons, so having to do without them is hardly "punishment".

I think if bandits had the cash and opportunities to purchase any weapon that they wanted, they might not have picked such a hazardous lifestyle.

Point is, I feel for people like Blue who want to make a spear fighter, only to find that the spear is pretty bad weapon and has nothing to really bring to the table, niche or otherwise. Likewise, I’m tired of seeing rapiers everywhere I go. I have 2 people using them in my current group, and that could easily become 3. When a weapon is that dominant, it’s typically a sign of a problem.

How is the spear a "pretty bad weapon"? It does only 1 point of damage less than the Longsword in exchange for being throwable. Even if you aren't using the feat that specifically supports it, that isn't a bad exchange.