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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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 houseruled that weapons may be able to deal different types of damage depending upon their design. So most sword users can choose to deal Slashing or Piercing. Many Warhammers have a pick on the back that can deal Piercing etc.

I would be cool seeing something like this:

Short Sword (Gladius, Scimitar)

Thats pretty similar to what we do have: the Short sword in the 5e table covers lots of weapons: Gladius, some arming swords, really big daggers etc. Pretty much any stabbing weapon bigger than a throwable dagger, but smaller than a full-size rapier.

 

[alienux]

I think weapons are just fine the way they are. I might have a couple of minor changes, but nothing to quibble over.

 

[Mercule]

I had to pick #3 because there isn't an "everything in moderation" option.

If 5E would have gone with Mearls' idea of super-simplification, it would have turned me off. I want some level of real, meaningful choice in weapons. I don't, however, want to see pages and pages of weapon listings that split the difference between wakizashi, short sword, gladius, xiphos, dao, etc. My ideal would probably be just slightly more detailed than 5E, but 5E is close enough.

 

[jasper]

Here's what I think I want:

Simple weapons are 1d6, Martial weapons are 1d8
Heavy and Two-Handed each increase die by 1 step
Finesse, Light, Thrown, Reach each decrease die by 1 step
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing as preferred.

Have a bunch of sample weapons in the table, and allow "design your own" within those rules.

No exceptions.

I will add to elffie here. Class mods. Which every of your class level is highest is your mod.
wimpy... them thar spell caster types -2 damage
goth boring.... thme that thiefs monks types +0 damage
jocks....fighter types +2 damage
and the weapon list is open to all classes and races.

 

[Gadget]

I'm of two minds on this: with weapon lists, you kind of want them to mechanically fulfill, or at least give a firm nod to, the real life application and use of said weapon. But with D&D's abstract combat system, it can be hard to deliver on that without over-complicating the game and/or delivering weird results and 'uber weapon' combos (Spiked Chain is the best weapon Evar!). I'm kind of leaning to your class and training giving you most of your weapon damage mojo, with the weapon choice being largely flavor. That way you could have all the obscure poll arms you want similar to 1e, but it would be your own abilities that would largely define what you could do with those weapons.

That way you don't feel you have to choose the rapier if you are a dex based melee fighter and such.

 

[MNblockhead]

Rather than an extensive weapons list, I would be happy if they keep the streamlined, manageable list in the PHB, but added guidance in the DMG for stating other historic weapons or creating custom weapons.

If a player has a concept for their character that includes weapons or armor that they feel are not represented in the default list, I will happily work with them to stat up the new weapon or armor, using the examples in the PHB.

Ultimately, however, I think more meaningful differentiation comes from feats than fiddling with the weapon's attributes.

Training and fighting styles make more of a difference than slight changes to curvature of a blade or the number of perpendicular spikes on a pole arm. The Chinese gun / Japanese bo is basically a quarterstaff. It is the style of fighting that differentiates western quarterstaff fighting versus shaolin staff fighting.

I think that D&D 5e should stick to its current simple, easy to understand and remember weapon properties (reach/range, finesse/versatile/2-handed/loading, and damage die), but allow for more flavor with feats. Even there, though, we already have feats for polearms, bows, cross bows, heavy weapons, dueling, and class abilities, add more.

A more interesting question for me is what armor and weapons (not including firearms and modern materias) are not easily modeled using the current RAW?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

D&D looks primarily at one factor that isn't even real: hit points (damage). Then it gives a courtesy nod to secondary weapons/shields. This makes weapon choice in D&D largely a choice of style, no?

Hit Points are, in fact, my least favorite part of D&D. But yes, the concepts are in conflict with each other. I also tend to play wizards, where picking the right spell for the situation is the norm.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I picked 'No'.

If Moldvay ain't got it, you don't need it.

 

[Dualazi]

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".

It's up to the DM in a hypothetical situation, and designing the game from the assumption of no magic items was a good choice, but I would definitely go so far as to say that this is not the intent of the game. Both for old fans and new ones, the allure of getting new powerful gear is a strong one, whether it be random or placed. To my knowledge every AP released so far has had a decent number of magic items in them, some of which are very powerful.

Likewise, while losing one doesn't cripple the character as in prior editions, being parted with a favored and storied magic item you may not be getting back is punishment enough, yeah.

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.

There are a lot of causes to turn to banditry, and not all of them leave you poorly equipped. Even if they did, that would just be cause for a small blurb about dealing a smaller amount of damage in the stat block, same as bugbears and some of the orcs in Volo's get arbitrary extra damage dice. That option is waaay more attractive to me then trying to justify a bad weapons table.

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.

It's bad for several reasons:

1) Multi-attacks are the go-to damage amp for most martial classes, and so each point of difference is significant. Realistically by midgame this can cost you 2-5 damage per round based on various circumstances. Whether or not that matters you is your call I suppose

2) The ranged quality is negligible on spears. At 20ft or closer chances are you just move to the enemy and attack, and further than that it gets disadvantage with poor damage. In fact, unless you're using the versatile property, you're just straight-up better off using a javelin at all times, since their 1h damage is the same and it has marginally better range.

3) Enchantments. This certainly does fall prey to the "no assumed magic items" argument, but you can flip through the DMG and see how many named/specialized swords there are versus spear options, and swords are definitely the victor.

This is what I mean when I ask for weapons to have a purpose/niche to fill that makes them an attractive choice in some way. Unless I'm dead set on using a spear for RP reasons, I can't think of any class where it would be desirable to do so.

 

[cmad1977]

Meh. Nah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk