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.).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing I don’t miss is two-handed swords, staves, and dueling polearms, being slower than one-handed weapons. It’s one common misconception that just bugs the hell outta me.

 

[Charlaquin]

as for the scythe, it kinda looks cool in a grim-reaper kind of way, but as someone who uses a scythe, it’s like the worse thing to use as a weapon. Like ever. I’ll take the pitch fork instead, or the garden rake over the scythe if I have to defend myself! Now take the scythe’s blade, turn it upward on a straight haft and now we’re talking. Except it’s now a fauchard and no longer a scythe…

Yeah, it's a good (agrarian Middle Ages) metaphor, but no one should be taking it literally that scythes are somehow a good weapon.

War scythes are perfectly fine weapons, but they’re basically spears made from recycled scythes.

 

[Greg K]

The Caber and the Heart Bow (ok, neither were official weapons, but they were kind of popular during the 80's)

 

[Don Durito]

The problem with that sort of thing is that then you have to add an armour type to every monster. And not all of them fit neatly into those categories.

Well yes. But if you're going to do it, then you're going to do it so to speak. (I wasn't saying it should be done, so much as, if you're going to do it, then this the way to do it).

That's really the issue with applying realistic ideas to weapons and armour in D&D. It all flies out the window when you expect your full plate to do anything when a giant smacks you with a two foot thick tree trunk.

Really, it would only make sense to hack weapons and armour that way if for some reason you were expecting the vast majority of enemies in the campaign to be humanoids of some type.

 

[Don Durito]

What I miss are bows that do more damage the stronger you are.

I really liked my massively strong Half-Orc Ranger with his composite bow.

 

[Aging Bard]

Messing with AC numbers is just a pain. It's not the way to skin this rabbit.

You need to do it by armour and weapon properties.

One way would be to add certain properties and have some weapons ignore them.

For example:

Medium armour has resistance against single handed slashing and piercing weapons (finally a reason for a versatile weapon).

Heavy Armour has Resistance against Slashing and Piercing, but not Bludgeoning damage.

Piercing weapons ignore resistance on a critical hit or when an attack is made with advantage.

Increase the damage of all Slashing weapons by one die type.

This is exactly what simplified ACAs do in 1e, so I agree!

 

[Azzy]

as for the scythe, it kinda looks cool in a grim-reaper kind of way, but as someone who uses a scythe, it’s like the worse thing to use as a weapon. Like ever. I’ll take the pitch fork instead, or the garden rake over the scythe if I have to defend myself! Now take the scythe’s blade, turn it upward on a straight haft and now we’re talking. Except it’s now a fauchard and no longer a scythe…

Oh, absolutely. However, it's one of those things that death priests need to look the part.

 

[jgsugden]

Honestly, I'd rather they went the opposite direction.

There are 4 Difficulty classes for weapons: Simple, Common, Martial, Exotic.

Simple weapons deal d4 damage and get one ability. Common deal d6 and get one ability. Martial deal d8 and get two abilities. Exotic deal d8 and gain three abilities.

Ability options: Die upgrade, Finesse, Versatile, Reach, light, two handed (allows a second die upgrade), ranged, returning, etc...

Fighters gain all proficiencies, including exotic. Wizards gain only simple.

You get to choose bludgeoning, slashing or piercing, and then fluff up your weapon any way you want. They'd list a few dozen examples, but if you want to make a Bat'leth, Krull Glaive, or anything else, you could. A DM can always limit the options if they want. This is pretty much what I do in my games - if a player wants to make up a weapon, I say go for it and I make sure it is interesting for them.

 

[Marc_C]

Katar and tiger claws are the first the come to mind.

 

[Undrave]

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.

They probably purposefully simplified weapons because they felt like that kind of stuff would be too fiddly.

It would be great material for some additional optional rules. I mean, we're getting a whole SETTING book about Casters... how about one about weapon users?