D&D 5E Weapons You Miss

[Azzy]

5e is great, don't get me wrong. In simplifying things, though, the weapon list was reduced significantly from earlier editions. Some of the weapons (like broadswords, many polearms, dire flails, etc.) were deservedly put on the chopping block, but there are others that are missed.

So, my EN Fam, what weapons from earlier editions that aren't in 5e do you miss the most?

For me, it's garrotes, scythes, long spears, whip-daggers, bolas, chakram, repeating crossbows, and specialty arrows (sheaf, flight, et al.).

 

[Undrave]

So you can use them with Strength.

I would be astounded if a simple 1d8 reach weapon broke anything at all.

Oh I hadn't though of Finesse used that way...clever!

I don't think it would break anything either but I think many Halfling and Gnome characters would flock to it, since it'd be the only weapon, aside from the Whip, with Reach that's not also Heavy.

d8 aside it also feels better than the Martial weapons because, again, it's not heavy.

Shuriken. It's super thematic, especially for Shadow Monks. I honestly don't really know why 5e left these out, but included the entirely superfluous trident

Darts are basically the same thing, mechanics wise, don't know why they aren't mentioned in the same line on the weapons table or something.

 

[Undrave]

Which cannot use strength, and which can use ranged attack feats. A strictly ranged weapon which is it's own ammunition. So if you have four attacks you can draw and throw four throwing daggers, all using (for example) the sharpshooter feat.

Darts are classified as ranged weapons, despite being thrown... How does that interact with ranged feats?

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it would break anything either but I think many Halfling and Gnome characters would flock to it, since it'd be the only weapon, aside from the Whip, with Reach that's not also Heavy.

Lance isn’t heavy either, but that’s kind of the point. I think Small characters should have a two-handed reach option, even if it’s a die size smaller than Medium polearm users get.

d8 aside it also feels better than the Martial weapons because, again, it's not heavy.

Heavy literally only matters if you’re Small, and I don’t think Small characters should be locked out of using reach weapons (besides whip I guess).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It feels very weird not having a sap/blackjack available for thieves to use.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Lance isn’t heavy either, but that’s kind of the point. I think Small characters should have a two-handed reach option, even if it’s a die size smaller than Medium polearm users get.

Heavy literally only matters if you’re Small, and I don’t think Small characters should be locked out of using reach weapons (besides whip I guess).

And monk, but Monks thematically should absolutely have reach weapon options.

I also just miss having weird niche weapons from all over the world, and stuff like the hoopak. (Also a lot of simple weapons should be more damaging than they are. It’s not hard to kill a human or larger sized animal with a sling)

But if I were to add those weapons back in, I’d also want to mock up an explicit permission type “rule” for using weapons in ways other than “I do a heckin whack”, like using an axe to catch a shield or trip, using a trident to disarm or grapple or trip, catching a fall with a pick, etc.

Then I’d add in a couple new traits like High Crit.

Then I’d bring in the claw gauntlet, the katar, the Falcata, etc.

Oh! And allow certain weapons, perhaps via a property, to be used as reach or not, with some drawback to using it with reach, so great swords and staves could be “reach” sometimes, but like reduce AC against attackers within 5ft.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Darts are basically the same thing, mechanics wise, don't know why they aren't mentioned in the same line on the weapons table or something.

I knew about darts, they just feel underwhelming as shuriken. They'd work fine for kunai (assuming there were a feature to use darts for more tool-like purposes). Perhaps this is my yearning for a more in-depth system than 5e offers; shuriken feel like what 4e would call a "superior weapon" version of darts. Something like "1d6 damage, slashing, finesse, range (30/80), thrown," and some kind of special property to reflect some of the shuriken's RL uses like embedding them in the ground as caltrops or affecting a target's senses on a crit (since shuriken were often thrown at a target's eyes).

As @doctorbadwolf has said, I'd like to bring back some of the cool weapon properties too, like high crit and brutal. Maybe even create a new property ("precise"? "deft"?) that grants a +1 to hit, to represent weapons that trade away maximum damage for a slight improvement to landing blows. That way you could (for example) make the trident differ from the spear by being brutal (all those extra flanges and pointy bits!), the rapier could drop down to 1d6 but be "deft"(/whatever) so the longsword isn't just outright outclassed, and things like khopesh could be added in. The falchion could then be a 1d6 (versatile 2d4) high crit weapon, for example.

 

[Aging Bard]

I've seen in other threads and boards that a complaint about 5e is a lack of distinctiveness in weapons and armor. In 1e, this was less of a problem, but also got obscured because distinctiveness was delivered through the universally reviled Armor Class Adjustments modifiers (ACAs). This derision was justified: 11 ACAs per weapon is too much. However, if one simplifies this down to a mere 3 ACAs per weapon--non-metal or no armor (N, AC 8-10), non-plated metal armor (M, AC 4-7), and plated armor (P, AC 0-3)--the distinctiveness comes shining through.

One can then understand:

• why knights carried both swords (damage dealing but poor against plated) and maces (bash through plated armor)
• why the blunt restriction for clerics was not so bad (blunt weapons bash!)
• why polearms were slow but useful (cheap damage-dealing can openers versus all armor)
• why slings and crossbows were the weapons of choice versus unarmed rabble
• why heavy lances, halberds, and two-handed swords were made of awesome despite their slowness
• and why plated armors were basically non-magical magic items and needed to be treated as such

But without ACAs, all this fun goodness is lost. If only Gary had edited the concept a bit more.

 

[TerraDave]

I've seen in other threads and boards that a complaint about 5e is a lack of distinctiveness in weapons and armor. In 1e, this was less of a problem, but also got obscured because distinctiveness was delivered through the universally reviled Armor Class Adjustments modifiers (ACAs). This derision was justified: 11 ACAs per weapon is too much. However, if one simplifies this down to a mere 3 ACAs per weapon--non-metal or no armor (N, AC 8-10), non-plated metal armor (M, AC 4-7), and plated armor (P, AC 0-3)--the distinctiveness comes shining through.

One can then understand:

• why knights carried both swords (damage dealing but poor against plated) and maces (bash through plated armor)
• why the blunt restriction for clerics was not so bad (blunt weapons bash!)
• why polearms were slow but useful (cheap damage-dealing can openers versus all armor)
• why slings and crossbows were the weapons of choice versus unarmed rabble
• why heavy lances, halberds, and two-handed swords were made of awesome despite their slowness
• and why plated armors were basically non-magical magic items and needed to be treated as such

But without ACAs, all this fun goodness is lost. If only Gary had edited the concept a bit more.

Also makes it easy to introduce firearms. But I think sling and crossbow are best against semi-armored rabble.

 

[TerraDave]

Weapon missed:

Bastard Sword.

 

[Aging Bard]

Weapon missed:

Bastard Sword.

Correct about firearms. And yes, the sweet, sweet bastard sword.