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

[schnee]

Not so sure about that either. ..

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

5E is perilously close to recreating the worst feature of 3.x - constant power creep in casters (because the framework of spells is easy and fun to write stuff for) and not much at all for martials (because it's hard and they don't want to anger the anti- 4E 'versimilitude' people by giving martial characters too much power).

 

[The Old Crow]

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

5E is perilously close to recreating the worst feature of 3.x - constant power creep in casters (because the framework of spells is easy and fun to write stuff for) and not much at all for martials (because it's hard and they don't want to anger the anti- 4E 'versimilitude' people by giving martial characters too much power).

Boo. That's for edition warring. And I otherwise agree with you about spellcaster power creep and the lack of martial love (mostly due to the lack of them creating something that all martials can benefit from having more of, except the optional feats which everyone can get. I really think they should have allowed multiple fighting styles or a stance system).

 

[Argyle King]

I like more details for weapons and more weapon choices.

However, there are already a few issues with the current 5e weapon list. I do not feel that more options should be added prior to making the current options more meaningful.

 

[cbwjm]

The current weapon list could probably be condensed, without removing any of the weapons from it. Many of the weapons have the same characteristics although weight and cost differ a bit, I'm not sure that would be a major issue to make them the same. You could easily do something like:

Damage: d8 slashing, Property: Versatile (d10), Examples: Battleaxe, Longsword.

 

[Geeknamese]

Check out Kobold Press' Beyond Damage Dice. No new weapons added but weapon options added to each weapon in the PHB that differentiates each weapon for the other besides damage dice. I love the extra options but a few are quite powerful in the right situations.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[steeldragons]

In the spirit of "How many/few weapons can you get away with in the game," how many categories of weapons do people feel are necessary to give the weapons some "in play" differentiations that matter?

In other words, I don't necessarily see the need for, for example, short swords and falchions and cutlasses and [even] scimitars if each and every one of them are just "d6 slashing damage" and all "light." That makes them all the same weapon, truly. So why have 3 if 1 will do. Then just visualize/describe the "short" easily-wielded blade however you want (single-edged, double-edged, slightly curved, gladius-like leaf shape, pommel or no, hand guard or no, etc... etc...)

What categories of weapons do we "need" to make the weapon choices distinct, mechanically, even if it -in meta-game terms- is a minute difference?

I tend to work with:

• Weight: Light and Heavy. You really don't need a "medium" because if something isn't light and it isn't heavy, then it's just "normal." Differences: Light weapons -by definition- may be used one to each hand for "dual-wielding"f fighting styles. Heavy weapons require two-hands, hence automatically "no shield" and -if you want a more minutia mechanical difference- go last (or at least receive some kind of penalty) on initiative in exchange for higher damage.
• Hands: Versatile and Two-handed: If it's not "able to be used with two-hands sometimes" [for increased damage] or "needs to be two-handed all of the time," then obviously, it's single handed. Differences: self explanatory.
• Type: Missile [or "Ranged"] and Melee [my version of "Martial" weapons]. kinda self-explanatory. If it's not able firing missiles or used predominantly by throwing, it's not a missile weapon. Melee weapons are the big clunky things you need special training or experience to use properly in hand-to-hand combat. If it's not a Missile or Melee weapon then it's obviously a "simple" [per 5e parlance] or "peasant" weapon that just about anyone could pick up and use effectively.
• Damage: Blunt [or "bludgeoning" if you prefer], Slashing, Piercing: and potentially combinations thereof, depending on the weapon, either "half & half" -as a morningstar dealing damage that is bludgeoning and piercing at the same time- or an option for the player for the type of damage they'd like to inflict -as a spear or halberd might be used to pierce or slash. Fairly self-explanatory stuff.

Then there are a few descriptors that might be tacked on to any combination of the above:

• Thrown: the weapon is light or balanced enough that it can be thrown effective enough to deal damage. Some things, like a javelin, is automatically thrown in its normal use, but a hammer or dagger doesn't have to be.
• Reach: a hand-held weapon that can strike someone more than your immediate neighbor. Usually I just bump it to 10 feet, almost always with a two-hands necessary. Those that like to get into the nitties and gritties of historical pole-arms might find/have different/farther reaches. This is not to say an enemy must be that far away to hit them, only that -if they wish- the PC can effectively hit/potentially damage someone at that extended "reach." For ease of play, I tend to just use 10' across the board...unless it's a pike, I guess.
• *Special: kinda lazy [on my part] catchall for anything a weapon can do that's not damage. Nets or whips can or may *entangle, for example. Perhaps a large battle axe or two-handed sword provides an AC bonus from "cover," etc...

I think that suitably covers everything (unless there's something obvious I'm just missing/forgetting at the moment) without being unnecessarily complicated or arcanely obscure.

What do people think? What other categorical terms do you use or prefer or just plain want in the game for more mechanical distinctions?

 

[Lanefan]

What categories of weapons do we "need" to make the weapon choices distinct, mechanically, even if it -in meta-game terms- is a minute difference?

I tend to work with:

• Weight: Light and Heavy. You really don't need a "medium" because if something isn't light and it isn't heavy, then it's just "normal." Differences: Light weapons -by definition- may be used one to each hand for "dual-wielding"f fighting styles. Heavy weapons require two-hands, hence automatically "no shield" and -if you want a more minutia mechanical difference- go last (or at least receive some kind of penalty) on initiative in exchange for higher damage.
• Hands: Versatile and Two-handed: If it's not "able to be used with two-hands sometimes" [for increased damage] or "needs to be two-handed all of the time," then obviously, it's single handed. Differences: self explanatory.
• Type: Missile [or "Ranged"] and Melee [my version of "Martial" weapons]. kinda self-explanatory. If it's not able firing missiles or used predominantly by throwing, it's not a missile weapon. Melee weapons are the big clunky things you need special training or experience to use properly in hand-to-hand combat. If it's not a Missile or Melee weapon then it's obviously a "simple" [per 5e parlance] or "peasant" weapon that just about anyone could pick up and use effectively.
• Damage: Blunt [or "bludgeoning" if you prefer], Slashing, Piercing: and potentially combinations thereof, depending on the weapon, either "half & half" -as a morningstar dealing damage that is bludgeoning and piercing at the same time- or an option for the player for the type of damage they'd like to inflict -as a spear or halberd might be used to pierce or slash. Fairly self-explanatory stuff.

Then there are a few descriptors that might be tacked on to any combination of the above:

• Thrown: the weapon is light or balanced enough that it can be thrown effective enough to deal damage. Some things, like a javelin, is automatically thrown in its normal use, but a hammer or dagger doesn't have to be.
• Reach: a hand-held weapon that can strike someone more than your immediate neighbor. Usually I just bump it to 10 feet, almost always with a two-hands necessary. Those that like to get into the nitties and gritties of historical pole-arms might find/have different/farther reaches. This is not to say an enemy must be that far away to hit them, only that -if they wish- the PC can effectively hit/potentially damage someone at that extended "reach." For ease of play, I tend to just use 10' across the board...unless it's a pike, I guess.
• *Special: kinda lazy [on my part] catchall for anything a weapon can do that's not damage. Nets or whips can or may *entangle, for example. Perhaps a large battle axe or two-handed sword provides an AC bonus from "cover," etc...

I think that suitably covers everything (unless there's something obvious I'm just missing/forgetting at the moment) without being unnecessarily complicated or arcanely obscure.

What do people think? What other categorical terms do you use or prefer or just plain want in the game for more mechanical distinctions?

Damage.

While the 1e idea of weapons doing different damage based on whether the foe is small or large isn't perfect, there's certainly room for having some weapons be more effective against small foes and others against large ones (so, some weapons have variable damage dice), or some other distinctions (a very limited version of 1e's weapon vs. armour type e.g. piercing does more damage vs. an unarmoured foe).

Have more different weapons do more different amounts of damage e.g. a shortsword might do d6, a mace 2d3, a cutlass d7, a scimitar d6+1, a longsword d8 and a bastard sword 2d4.

Another category might be defensive: some weapons might build in some defenses e.g. sais can disarm a foe or a spike-shield gives some AC.

A further distinction might be finesse where certain weapons (but not a whole category) in the hands of a dextrous wielder would sacrifice some damage for a better chance to hit.

And there's room within your "light" (and normal) category to further break down which weapons can and cannot effectively be dual-wielded and in what combinations and-or which can be used with a buckler.

A further refinement is the size of the wielder. A longsword (1-handed) to a human might need 2 hands for a Hobbit to wield; said Hobbit could not use a normal 2-handed sword at all.

Lanefan