Weapons PhB, not very much variety?

[Bellberith]

what is with the poor selection of weapons? and has anyone done anything to add a little spice to it?

seems like the majority of the weapons are just re-skinned versions of others. and some of them aren't portrayed correctly in my opinion. such as the pike, on average they should be 15ft at least.

[Inevitability]

One of my players requested a 'sword cane'. It looks like a walking stick, but by turning the knob you can pull out a short sword. I simply prized it a bit higher than a short sword and so far things have been going well.

[Jacque]

Simplicity makes it easier to balance. I guess it was a question of priority. I much rather prefer this than the 3.5 one-weapon-to-rule-them-all approach.

[archaeo]

what is with the poor selection of weapons? and has anyone done anything to add a little spice to it?

First off, it's worth pointing out that there are dozens and dozens of magic weapons available in the DMG, along with some alternate weaponry from other "time periods."

But beyond that, it's just a question of design space, isn't it? 5e gives weapons a damage dice and then some pretty small riders, with more impactful combat effects requiring class features or feats. The game tends to think that the kind of PC you are should make a bigger difference than what you're wielding, as far as mundane weaponry goes; splashier effects are reserved for the game's giant library of magic weapons.


and some of them aren't portrayed correctly in my opinion. such as the pike, on average they should be 15ft at least.

I'm trying to imagine someone swinging a 15 foot pole around in the kind of close-quarters combat one often sees in D&D. It'd be pretty wild, I'm sure! In terms of game balance though, that extra five feet in addition to PCs naturally hefting them with the help of the Polearm Master feat would probably really affect combat.

Just a balance thing to keep in mind, though. Tweaking this kind of thing at your table is super reasonable.

[rollingForInit]

Eh, I always thought it was strange how 4e had pages upon pages of "exotic weapons". Seems unnecessary. 5e gives a decent selection, and if you want something else, just reflavour one of the existing weapons. Want a katana? Use the longsword stats. Etc.

And I'm not sure it makes sense to start talking about realism in how D&D handles weapons, their attributes, abilities used to attack with them ... The entire system falls apart under such scrutiny.

[MrUberGr]

Actually there was an awesome thread that discussed the way to create homebrew weapons. If I remember properly, it had the attributes split in two categories, positive and negative. For each positive you'd have to decrease the dice size and for each negative you'd increase it.

[Inevitability]

Actually there was an awesome thread that discussed the way to create homebrew weapons. If I remember properly, it had the attributes split in two categories, positive and negative. For each positive you'd have to decrease the dice size and for each negative you'd increase it.

This thread, you mean? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?378583-Weapon-Damage-Logic-How-to-Homebrew-and-Why-Some-Weapons-are-Trap-Options)

[Feddlefew]

One of my players requested a 'sword cane'. It looks like a walking stick, but by turning the knob you can pull out a short sword. I simply prized it a bit higher than a short sword and so far things have been going well.

Wouldn't a sword-cane be a rapier?

[Chronos]

My DM was bothered by the fact that no finesse weapons are bludgeoning, putting a Dex-user at a disadvantage vs. skeletons. So he decreed that a nunchuk was 1d6 bludgeoning, martial, finesse.

[Beleriphon]

Wouldn't a sword-cane be a rapier?

Probably, its just a rapier with a funky property about being able to hide it, or use stealth with it to conceal its nature.

[Cazero]

Having a very broad selection of weapons in the PHB is not interesting, or even desirable. It can only create one of two thing : trap options, or needlessly complicated weapon rules.
If you want to allow a wider variety of weapons, you can create them from the values that already exist. There is no reason to recreate a three page table describing how fauchard, glaive-guisarme and other bohemian earspoon all have different mechanics.

[Chronos]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

[ChubbyRain]

The weapon table in the phb is a huge disappointment that shows how much time and creativity really is allocated for anything not magical.

If they didn't want to put effort into it they should have just went 13 age and allowed the classes to determine damage type and what ability scores they can use for attack and damage. This a good and simple way to make a weapon system that doesn't take focus away from other areas of the game.

[Bellberith]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

This is what im talking about. With the re-skinned weapons it actually limits what players will actually use.

less than half of that list will see any play aside from someone purposely choosing inferior options such as the....

pike/trident/greatclub/battleaxe/greataxe ect....

Why would anyone choose a greataxe for 1d12 damage when 2d6 is superior and 2d6 synergizes with the "re-roll 1s and 2s" as well as most other 2h bonuses better.

[Giant2005]

Why would anyone choose a greataxe for 1d12 damage when 2d6 is superior and 2d6 synergizes with the "re-roll 1s and 2s" as well as most other 2h bonuses better.
Because 1D12 synergizes with Brutal Criticals.

[rollingForInit]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

But exactly the same thing would be true if you have a 100 weapons. There were lots of weapons in 4e that were worthless. And there were a few that were suprior in every way. It didn't change anything. It just increased the amount of superior and inferior weapons.


The weapon table in the phb is a huge disappointment that shows how much time and creativity really is allocated for anything not magical.

If they didn't want to put effort into it they should have just went 13 age and allowed the classes to determine damage type and what ability scores they can use for attack and damage. This a good and simple way to make a weapon system that doesn't take focus away from other areas of the game.

But more weapons wouldn't make martial characters more interesting. It would just have been an entire chapter listing weapons that are basically more or less the same, just variations of damage dice and other features. The PHB already encourages people to flavour weapons to their liking.

If you want martial characters with as varied features as spellcasters, look at 4e. That's what they did there; every class had exactly the same amount of powers, abilities and they were only flavoured differently. And that was boring as hell.

A couple of more completely non-spellcaster classes and subclasses would be much better, as well as maybe some more feats. That's how you make martial characters more varied and interesting - not by throwing in a 100 variations of Longsword.

[Beleriphon]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

Eh, a trident is only a good thing when catching fish. Functionally it isn't any different than a spear. Poseidon only has a trident since its associated with fisherman, and thus the sea. I agree with you though, that as a separate weapon on the weapon table is kind of silly when the spear is the same thing. I honestly think the thing is included so the DMG could include Trident of Fish Command so people can be Aquaman.

[Wartex1]

Tridents are better for gladiatorial combat, as it makes a better show. The wounds from it look more serious but aren't quite as life-threatening. Thus, you make a better show.

[oxybe]

I've long been disappointed with weapons in D&D. I remember the silliness of the polearm charts of yore and going "that's a lot of minor differences that won't see any play". I think the two best weapon systems i've seen are the 4th ed version of Gamma World, where you picked if your weapon was finessed or not and if it was a one-hander or two hander (finesse weapons were more accurate, strength weapons dealt a bit more damage) and the rest was 100% cosmetic so it was super simple and easy to use or Legend's build a weapon system which was extremely customizable and far more interesting then anything D&D's weapon lists have ever done.

[Beleriphon]

I've long been disappointed with weapons in D&D. I remember the silliness of the polearm charts of yore and going "that's a lot of minor differences that won't see any play". I think the two best weapon systems i've seen are the 4th ed version of Gamma World, where you picked if your weapon was finessed or not and if it was a one-hander or two hander (finesse weapons were more accurate, strength weapons dealt a bit more damage) and the rest was 100% cosmetic so it was super simple and easy to use or Legend's build a weapon system which was extremely customizable and far more interesting then anything D&D's weapon lists have ever done.

ENWorld's OLD game line uses a single damage code for each weapon time. For example every polearm is the same, and each is just a cosmetic diffence so we don't end up with bohemian-fulchard-guisarmes-ear-spoons

[Cazero]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

Exactly my point. Every time you add a weapon to the table, you create something like the trident. And if you try to solve it by giving an advantage to the trap option, you create needlessly complicated weapon rules.
The proper solution is to make the trident mechanically identical to the spear, wich brings the legitimate question of why bother putting it in at all? The answer : you don't, you make a limited list where entries can cover a broad number of weapons. The long sword is a perfect example : is it a middle age european longsword, a secession war cavalry sword, a cutlass, a katana? You can pick the one you like because it doesn't matter !

[D.U.P.A.]

This is what im talking about. With the re-skinned weapons it actually limits what players will actually use.

less than half of that list will see any play aside from someone purposely choosing inferior options such as the....

pike/trident/greatclub/battleaxe/greataxe ect....

Why would anyone choose a greataxe for 1d12 damage when 2d6 is superior and 2d6 synergizes with the "re-roll 1s and 2s" as well as most other 2h bonuses better.

d12 is more fun to roll, it rolls better.

Trident could be used as pitchfork to move hay or similar stuff. Warpick can be used to mining when not fighting. And so on.

[Chronos]

Quoth rollingForInit:

A couple of more completely non-spellcaster classes and subclasses would be much better,...
If by "a couple more", you mean "create some in the first place". There isn't even any class in the PHB that doesn't cast at all. Only one out of the two barbarian paths, one out of three for the fighter and rogue, and two out of three for the monk, have casting, and in some cases it's not very much, but every class has a spellcasting option to at least some degree.

[ChubbyRain]

But more weapons wouldn't make martial characters more interesting. It would just have been an entire chapter listing weapons that are basically more or less the same, just variations of damage dice and other features. The PHB already encourages people to flavour weapons to their liking.

If you want martial characters with as varied features as spellcasters, look at 4e. That's what they did there; every class had exactly the same amount of powers, abilities and they were only flavoured differently. And that was boring as hell.

A couple of more completely non-spellcaster classes and subclasses would be much better, as well as maybe some more feats. That's how you make martial characters more varied and interesting - not by throwing in a 100 variations of Longsword.

It isn't just about non-casters having cool things to do with weapons though. If you are a Wizard who likes to use weapons (abjuration wizards specically) and you gain proficiency with Weapon Master feat then you can use these Bonus Action, reaction, or passive abilities too.

Yeah, I would prefer some effective noncaster classes that just wasn't about *move and attack* but if they don't even put effort into the weapon system do we even have a chance at that?

From what I've seen in the PHB, the only way they put effort into making something is if it has the *magic* tag along with it. The only exception so far has been 60% of the barbarian and 50% of the rogue. But they probably fell into that by accident.

There are so many ways to make the weapon table better, easily, than what they did. They get paid to make a product, people who play the game shouldn't have to home brew so much of it due to their laziness. If I knew so much of the game would be devoted to making magic users awesome and everything else being made half assed then I probably wouldn't have bought the core book.

I wasn't aware the basic rules for weapons would be the complete rules for weapons or that martial classes would be ignored when it came to combat.

[JAL_1138]

I'm trying to sort out a conversion (where needed; most things drop in fine, but don't have properties like finesse) of the AD&D list. Because if there aren't fifteen or twenty types of polearms to pick from, it's just not the same.

[Easy_Lee]

As has been said, the 5e intent is that players use existing weapon stats for their exotic weapons and just refluff. That said, I think the weapons table (for the most part) follows a measurable set of rules. I wrote a post on weapon logic, which is in my signature, giving my thoughts on how to balance new weapons using the current table as a basis. I hope that it's helpful.

[SiuiS]

I'm trying to imagine someone swinging a 15 foot pole around in the kind of close-quarters combat one often sees in D&D.

There's your problem! You don't swing a pike. :smallsmile:

[Bellberith]

There's your problem! You don't swing a pike. :smallsmile:

Good catch! and very true. Pikes were usually braced on the ground and enemies ran into them, or they could be thrusted for similar effect.

[Easy_Lee]

Good catch! and very true. Pikes were usually braced on the ground and enemies ran into them, or they could be thrusted for similar effect.

This is the bigger part of the reason why I have no problem with the largest player weapons having 10' reach. Anything longer than 6-7' or so (which would yield a reach of close to 10' on a lunge for most) would be unwieldy in single combat. The other reason is that it would be difficult to carry whilst dungeon-delving.

D&D encounters, with their generally small numbers, are more skirmishes than battles. And history tells us that one uses different weapons in a skirmish, few vs. few, than a large-scale battle (until guns show up).

[Morty]

Exactly my point. Every time you add a weapon to the table, you create something like the trident. And if you try to solve it by giving an advantage to the trap option, you create needlessly complicated weapon rules.
The proper solution is to make the trident mechanically identical to the spear, wich brings the legitimate question of why bother putting it in at all? The answer : you don't, you make a limited list where entries can cover a broad number of weapons. The long sword is a perfect example : is it a middle age european longsword, a secession war cavalry sword, a cutlass, a katana? You can pick the one you like because it doesn't matter !

Yeah, the list of weapons in D&D Next could be three times shorter while conveying the same amount variety and being easier to use. I guess it's the way it is because people would make a fuss otherwise.

[oxybe]

it's not the number of weapons a lot of us are taking issue with. 100 different weapons done in the core PHB style is still going to leave us dissatisfied.

It's that the weapons themselves are generally uninteresting in play.

[Ralanr]

it's not the number of weapons a lot of us are taking issue with. 100 different weapons done in the core PHB style is still going to leave us dissatisfied.

It's that the weapons themselves are generally uninteresting in play.

So what would make them more interesting to play?

[Naanomi]

I feel we don't need more, but perhaps we could have benefited from one or two less (trident most obviously) to make peole not get flustered over universal mechanically weaker options

[Magic Myrmidon]

With the way weapons are now, categories of "simple one handed do a d6, martial one handed do d8, simple two handed do d10, martial two handed do 2d6" would solve a lot of problems. Also probably give every weapon a few points for properties like finesse or light, to buy unique properties that differentiate weapons.

[ChubbyRain]

So what would make them more interesting to play?

Bonus Action, Reaction, and Passive abilities based on weapon types that you only can use if you are proficient with said weapon.

Or proficient and have extra attack? Though it wouldn't take the extra attack action to use, just that you show your dedication to weapons that way.

Passive: Most Weapons: Change weapon damage type based on the type of weapon and what damage they potentially can do. Slashing weapons that have a pointed end can deal piercing. Piercing weapons with hand guards can do bludgeoning. Bludgeoning weapons that have spikes (like warhammers may) can deal piercing.

Versitile and Two Handed Hammers: When you hit with these weapons you push the target 5'.

Whips and weapons like whips: When a creature provokes an OA and you are wielding a whip, you may attempt to grapple the creature instead of making a weapon attack.

Sickles and sickle like weapons: When a creature provokes an OA and you are wielding this kind of weapon, you may attempt to Shove (Prone) the creature instead of making a weapon attack.

This is very simple things that can bring a whole helping of tactical options to the table.

If they won't give the classes simple tactical options you might as well give it to the weapon system.

Slight effort and you open up nonmagical classes to have options too. Hell, if you are power creeping magic then we should powercreep noncasters too.

[oxybe]

So what would make them more interesting to play?

More abilities tied the combat style that particular weapon uses. If you're proficient in the use of the weapon you can make use of it's combat style.

Look at something like the rapier and how it's traditionally used: quick strikes to vital areas done by a user that goes in and out of combat.

In D&D it's used by rogues because it's the highest damage value weapon they can use their dex bonus on.

Give the rapier a Style Proficiency where if you're trained in it's use, you can use a once per round free action to backstep and disengage from combat, forcing enemies to follow you as you dance around them if they want to engage in combat. This follows the normal "engage when I'm comfortable, disengage when i'm not" the rapier tends to do.

On the other hand, give the Maul the ability batter enemies even on a miss. If you're proficient in the use of the maul you get a Style Proficiency where if you miss on an attack, but the number you missed with is equal or lower then your proficiency modifier then you get to deal your strength modifier worth of damage anyway, as it batters down on them.

These are just examples mind you, but it will make your choice of weapon more about "what properties of this weapon and it's style work best for me" instead of simply going "what is the best damage dice value to weight ratio i can care about". Heck, you can make the weapons deal all the same damage for all I care in this type of system as your choice of weapon impacts far more how you play with it then "rogues use rapiers because d8 and can add dex to hit/damage"

Non-proficient character are likely to simply pickup the maul because it's a big heavy weapon and likely hurts more then a smaller club for those characters it's all about the damage dice because they can't make proficient use of it. It's more flavorful all around and definitely more interesting in play.

[JAL_1138]

With the way weapons are now, categories of "simple one handed do a d6, martial one handed do d8, simple two handed do d10, martial two handed do 2d6" would solve a lot of problems. Also probably give every weapon a few points for properties like finesse or light, to buy unique properties that differentiate weapons.

...this is a really solid idea and hearkens back to BECMI/RC where weapon damage was standardized to d6 but options for weapon mastery allowed you to do different things with them. I may steal this instead of porting over the AD&D list, once I sort out what point values to give for reach, finesse, light, etc.

[Naanomi]

...this is a really solid idea and hearkens back to BECMI/RC where weapon damage was standardized to d6 but options for weapon mastery allowed you to do different things with them. I may steal this instead of porting over the AD&D list, once I sort out what point values to give for reach, finesse, light, etc.
Yeah several people have worked through systems of 'build-a-weapon' that would have worked great, perhaps in the DMG as a way to add weapons to your system (and the PHB would have a list of basic/classic example weapons using the system to choose from)

[rollingForInit]

If by "a couple more", you mean "create some in the first place". There isn't even any class in the PHB that doesn't cast at all. Only one out of the two barbarian paths, one out of three for the fighter and rogue, and two out of three for the monk, have casting, and in some cases it's not very much, but every class has a spellcasting option to at least some degree.

But ... there are. There are several tracks from several classes that are 100% non-casting. Champion. Battlemaster. Thief. Etc. They are 100% magic free. I agree that there should be more, but don't go an claim they don't exist. The fact that Fighter also has the EK subclass isn't relevant, because any martial class you make could get a magical subclass, by just slamming some magic on it.



If I knew so much of the game would be devoted to making magic users awesome and everything else being made half assed then I probably wouldn't have bought the core book.


So if the non-spellcasting classes suck so much and you only want to play them, why don't you play something else? Magic is a pretty important, all-encompassing part of D&D.



Bonus Action, Reaction, and Passive abilities based on weapon types that you only can use if you are proficient with said weapon.

Or proficient and have extra attack? Though it wouldn't take the extra attack action to use, just that you show your dedication to weapons that way.

Versitile and Two Handed Hammers: When you hit with these weapons you push the target 5'.

Whips and weapons like whips: When a creature provokes an OA and you are wielding a whip, you may attempt to grapple the creature instead of making a weapon attack.

Sickles and sickle like weapons: When a creature provokes an OA and you are wielding this kind of weapon, you may attempt to Shove (Prone) the creature instead of making a weapon attack.

This is very simple things that can bring a whole helping of tactical options to the table.

If they won't give the classes simple tactical options you might as well give it to the weapon system.

Slight effort and you open up nonmagical classes to have options too. Hell, if you are power creeping magic then we should powercreep noncasters too.




More abilities tied the combat style that particular weapon uses. If you're proficient in the use of the weapon you can make use of it's combat style.

Look at something like the rapier and how it's traditionally used: quick strikes to vital areas done by a user that goes in and out of combat.

In D&D it's used by rogues because it's the highest damage value weapon they can use their dex bonus on.

Give the rapier a Style Proficiency where if you're trained in it's use, you can use a once per round free action to backstep and disengage from combat, forcing enemies to follow you as you dance around them if they want to engage in combat. This follows the normal "engage when I'm comfortable, disengage when i'm not" the rapier tends to do.


The issue with tying abilities like that to specific weapons it that the game then becomes inconsistent because you can only make those plays with those specific weapons. For instance, the rapier example would probably upset people because that's how you do with many swordfighting. You attack quickly, then step away quickly. Even with longswords.

Why wouldn't a large, beefy person be able to shove someone when hitting with his large greatsword, if you can with a maul? Or if he turned the sword over and knocked someone with the pommel?

Also, many of the things already exist. You can get battlemaster maneuvers from a feat. The Mobile feat allows you to practically disengage whenever you attack with a melee weapon. There are feats for grappling, stopping people when they move, using your shield more effectively, etc.

I agree that there are too few 100% martial options, but the issue isn't the weapons list. The issue is a lack of 100% martial options. More feats would be a great way to add more tactics. Tying specific abilitites to individual weapons is not, because most of the things you've suggested should be applicable to most weapons. What you're after isn't more weapon features. You want martial fighting styles.

Also, if you start adding very compelling special abilities to individual weapons, you create even more "traps", because it'll mean that some weapons will always be completely superior to others for specific builds. That's already the case, obviously, but adding those special abilities would make it hurt even more to try to prioritise flavour over mechanics.

[mephnick]

I'm not sure weapons were supposed to be "exciting". It's basically you choosing your flavour and damage die, it doesn't need to be complicated.

It's only a matter of time before they add something like the falcata, then no martial will every have to deal with weapon stats again.

[oxybe]

The issue with tying abilities like that to specific weapons it that the game then becomes inconsistent because you can only make those plays with those specific weapons. For instance, the rapier example would probably upset people because that's how you do with many swordfighting. You attack quickly, then step away quickly. Even with longswords.

Why wouldn't a large, beefy person be able to shove someone when hitting with his large greatsword, if you can with a maul? Or if he turned the sword over and knocked someone with the pommel?

Also, many of the things already exist. You can get battlemaster maneuvers from a feat. The Mobile feat allows you to practically disengage whenever you attack with a melee weapon. There are feats for grappling, stopping people when they move, using your shield more effectively, etc.

I agree that there are too few 100% martial options, but the issue isn't the weapons list. The issue is a lack of 100% martial options. More feats would be a great way to add more tactics. Tying specific abilitites to individual weapons is not, because most of the things you've suggested should be applicable to most weapons. What you're after isn't more weapon features. You want martial fighting styles.

Also, if you start adding very compelling special abilities to individual weapons, you create even more "traps", because it'll mean that some weapons will always be completely superior to others for specific builds. That's already the case, obviously, but adding those special abilities would make it hurt even more to try to prioritise flavour over mechanics.

just to go from paragraph to paragraph:

1) I'm not saying to keep the current weapon list and tack on this system, but replace it. In this replacement system thee "rapier" ability isn't necessarily used for just "rapiers" but could be for your one-handed sword of choice. Admittingly this won't make everyone happy, but the current system doesn't either, an as you yourself says later: the battlemaster can use a similar ability with any weapon. If anything this showcases the battlemaster's proficiency in the combat arts. Do also note i'm not going for realism but more for stylistic choice. Yes the back and forth is something real martial arts actually do, but we're not talking about a "real" world but one that is built around many stylistic choices, the big ones being "magic exists" and "look, elves!" so we've already left the building and gone home while realism was busy taking a toilet break. By giving rapier or the lighter, one handed weapons a unique feature it gets to stand out when compared to the bigger, heavier weapons.

2) the big guy can't do it for the same reason any schmuck with a brain can't just mumble a few words, throw some bat poop and suddenly a fireball occurs: there needs to be a certain point where you separate what abilities are keyed to class, items and feats. The proposed system I'm talking about ties to both classes and items: any character proficient with the weapon can get the benefit of the minor ability it bestows, but the battlemaster fighter can, again, make better use of a similar ability by applying it to all weapons he can use or simply make use of the weapon specific one.

3) at the end of the day feats are an optional system even if they are widely used and telling a character "i'm sorry but you have to wait until level 4 or level 8 to have interesting weapon options" especially if they're a character that has an interest in using weapons, something that shouldn't be difficult to imagine considering that there is a class who's entire raison d'etre is "hits things with weapons" but who's abilities are transferable to all weapons.

4) Martial fighting styles are options and tying them to weapons instead of the optional and rare feats allows characters, not just non-casters but anyone proficient with the weapon to use the style. After all, shouldn't proficiency indicate the ability to actually use the weapon in a method it was made for instead of the barely basic competency of "will not stab self on a regular basis"? As it is proriciency in weapons isn't an interesting mechanic as it stands.

This will also give characters proficient in multiple weapons to actually use them for reasons beyond the "i guess i should have a blunt, stabby and slashy one" but rather change weapon for the fight at hand based on the ability it has. A weapon with the "maul" ability i mentioned would be swapped out for hard to hit, high AC targets while the rapier one will force more offensive enemies to engage on the character's terms.

Tying this to feats, feats that only come online at level 4 is something that comes online far too late for the options the minor benefits mechanic i'm proposing actually provides.

5) if you're going to start talking about builds, you need to look at how many classes are better for some builds and have a much bigger effect on the build then the weapon choice and the minor benefit it would give, do you also want to put classes to the same scrutiny? Not all builds are built equal under all circumstances. Druids aren't known for their two-handed weapon builds, but fighters are. do you mean to drop the fighter's ability to use two-handed weapon because of this inequality or do you want to bring the druid up to fighter ability?

Many characters in D&D use weapons but entirely as a vehicle for damage or character ability. If weapon choice doesn't matter or is supposed to be insignificant as a choice, why put a laundry list of them in the book? why not just give a flat "class damage" dice and use that page space for something else and leave weapon choice as 100% cosmetic? Legacy?

The options i'm talking about add a distinctive flair to the weapon/weapon type that isn't overpowered but gives mechanical distinction to it. You know that a character using a rapier or one-handed sword or whatever the distinction made is, is likely to be darting around the field and this is mechanically represented. Or do you agree that having some things better for some purpose but not better overall (a sidegrade on a character not focused on anything in particular) rather then others is required for making flavour choices better represented mechanically.

[archaeo]

There's your problem! You don't swing a pike. :smallsmile:

Oh, I know. But D&D doesn't do a great job of modeling "stand in place with several hundred other people while defending your lines with pikes," and whatnot.


Many characters in D&D use weapons but entirely as a vehicle for damage or character ability. If weapon choice doesn't matter or is supposed to be insignificant as a choice, why put a laundry list of them in the book? why not just give a flat "class damage" dice and use that page space for something else and leave weapon choice as 100% cosmetic? Legacy?

Well, legacy isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an anniversary edition that's trying to reclaim the "heart" of D&D. However, having a simple but meaningful layer of mechanics that live in the weapons list is a good thing for the game, in my opinion. It's not an insignificant choice, but it is fairly obvious what's going on (I expect the difference between 1d12 and 2d6 isn't something many D&D players will be blown away by) and it equally obvious how to extend the concept to a variety of other weapons.

To me, it's a very elegant middle ground between the "'class damage' dice" you suggest and a big, beefy weapon system where a lot of the game's complexity is tied up in weapon choice and use. Naturally, I expect there are many who disagree.

[Morty]

I'm not sure weapons were supposed to be "exciting". It's basically you choosing your flavour and damage die, it doesn't need to be complicated.

It's only a matter of time before they add something like the falcata, then no martial will every have to deal with weapon stats again.

The issue here is really that the weapons table pretends to be a lot more complicated than it actually is. It could be boiled down to three or four lines, but instead it's presented as though it actually gives you several choices. It's an illusion of complexity where there is none, and that's really inelegant.

[archaeo]

The issue here is really that the weapons table pretends to be a lot more complicated than it actually is. It could be boiled down to three or four lines, but instead it's presented as though it actually gives you several choices. It's an illusion of complexity where there is none, and that's really inelegant.

There's merit to this argument, but there's utility to the fact that, if I want, say, my rad-and-very-special Rogue to use a kujang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujang_(weapon)), it's easy for my DM to say, "oh, that's basically a short sword, 1d6 piercing, finesse, one-handed as a starting point."

It isn't really "pretending" to be anything other than a list of common, generic weapons that establishes some baselines and gives a good platform for improvisation. You could certainly achieve the same kind of thing with the three or four lines you suggest, but 5e is pretty big on giving big tables of stuff that you can take or leave as needed. That seems elegant enough to me; it may be more than some people need, but on average, it's a good foundation to build upon, a worthy goal for a set of mechanics.

[rollingForInit]

just to go from paragraph to paragraph:

1) By giving rapier or the lighter, one handed weapons a unique feature it gets to stand out when compared to the bigger, heavier weapons.


But why do they have to stand out even more? They already do. For instance, you can dual-wield them, which you cannot with heavier weapons.

Special features and combat styles shouldn't be tied to weapons, they should be tied to feats, class features, etc. Tying them to weapons means that you're going to create mandatory weapons for various builds, and that straying from those will be "traps" mentioned earlier, and will just be completely suboptimal.



3) at the end of the day feats are an optional system even if they are widely used and telling a character "i'm sorry but you have to wait until level 4 or level 8 to have interesting weapon options" especially if they're a character that has an interest in using weapons, something that shouldn't be difficult to imagine considering that there is a class who's entire raison d'etre is "hits things with weapons" but who's abilities are transferable to all weapons.


Or you could just start at a higher level, which is even recommended for experienced players. Start at level 4 and you get your first feat. Two, if you go variant human.

And again - there's already some support for this in the classes. Rogues can do exactly what you've been talking about, fighting and then disengaging, for instance.



4) Martial fighting styles are options and tying them to weapons instead of the optional and rare feats allows characters, not just non-casters but anyone proficient with the weapon to use the style. After all, shouldn't proficiency indicate the ability to actually use the weapon in a method it was made for instead of the barely basic competency of "will not stab self on a regular basis"? As it is proriciency in weapons isn't an interesting mechanic as it stands.


But most weapons are intended to be used for hitting and parrying. Not for executing exotic superhuman maneuvers, for grappling or whatever else can be imagined. That should be the realm of feats or similar options, and should be applicable to a wide variety of weapons. Proficiency with weapons is supposed to be some incredibly amazing; it's supposed to indicate that you can fight with the weapon. It's really not been anything more than that, at least not in the previous two versions of D&D.




This will also give characters proficient in multiple weapons to actually use them for reasons beyond the "i guess i should have a blunt, stabby and slashy one" but rather change weapon for the fight at hand based on the ability it has. A weapon with the "maul" ability i mentioned would be swapped out for hard to hit, high AC targets while the rapier one will force more offensive enemies to engage on the character's terms.


The only thing I feel is lacking here is the issue where armor doesn't matter in terms of weapon choice. E.g. plate armor should be virtually immune to slashing and piercing - bludgeoning should be the way to go. But I can definitely see why that would probably just make things too complicated and would make encounter challenge construction much more of a bother.



5) if you're going to start talking about builds, you need to look at how many classes are better for some builds and have a much bigger effect on the build then the weapon choice and the minor benefit it would give, do you also want to put classes to the same scrutiny? Not all builds are built equal under all circumstances. Druids aren't known for their two-handed weapon builds, but fighters are. do you mean to drop the fighter's ability to use two-handed weapon because of this inequality or do you want to bring the druid up to fighter ability?


I seriously don't know where you're going with this.



Many characters in D&D use weapons but entirely as a vehicle for damage or character ability. If weapon choice doesn't matter or is supposed to be insignificant as a choice, why put a laundry list of them in the book? why not just give a flat "class damage" dice and use that page space for something else and leave weapon choice as 100% cosmetic? Legacy?

I imagine it's a compromise between efficieny and legacy. They wanted to make things simpler than 4e (seriously, did you play 4e? The weapon bloat was a mess), while not being too drastical and removing weapons tables at all. D&D is big on tables for stuff, after all. So, a compromise.



The options i'm talking about add a distinctive flair to the weapon/weapon type that isn't overpowered but gives mechanical distinction to it. You know that a character using a rapier or one-handed sword or whatever the distinction made is, is likely to be darting around the field and this is mechanically represented. Or do you agree that having some things better for some purpose but not better overall (a sidegrade on a character not focused on anything in particular) rather then others is required for making flavour choices better represented mechanically.

I believe that most of the weapons are already so similar that it makes no sense to tie special abilities to them. I could see how sometihng like a whip or a net that's really out there might have something special, but aside from that? Not really. Special maneuvers should be based on classes and feats. Not weapons. That'd just create even more trap options and superior weapons.

[Morty]

There's merit to this argument, but there's utility to the fact that, if I want, say, my rad-and-very-special Rogue to use a kujang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujang_(weapon)), it's easy for my DM to say, "oh, that's basically a short sword, 1d6 piercing, finesse, one-handed as a starting point."

It isn't really "pretending" to be anything other than a list of common, generic weapons that establishes some baselines and gives a good platform for improvisation. You could certainly achieve the same kind of thing with the three or four lines you suggest, but 5e is pretty big on giving big tables of stuff that you can take or leave as needed. That seems elegant enough to me; it may be more than some people need, but on average, it's a good foundation to build upon, a worthy goal for a set of mechanics.

There is undoubtedly utility to it. And the point is that the 5e table could achieve this utility much more efficiently without sacrificing anything. There's really nothing to take or leave from there. The only real reason for the table is, I suspect, that it's looked like that since 3e and people would make a fuss if it looked differently.

[archaeo]

There is undoubtedly utility to it. And the point is that the 5e table could achieve this utility much more efficiently without sacrificing anything. There's really nothing to take or leave from there. The only real reason for the table is, I suspect, that it's looked like that since 3e and people would make a fuss if it looked differently.

I'm not totally sure what you mean. There's a fair bit of range on the weapon table, from d4 to 2d6, and a handful of modifiers and damage types to further differentiate things. It's a small range, designed to be simple and easy to use. It gives you plenty of examples so that you can make quick decisions, but it's simple enough that modifying any given weapon to do what you want is an easily accomplished task.

I don't know, maybe that isn't "elegant" like a math proof or clever program executed in just a few lines, but it's pretty functional. Plus, it's basically bait for nerds like us to argue about, whether or not pikes should really be 1d10 2h reach weapons or not, etc., providing more grist for the D&D conversation mill! Win-win-win, from where I'm sitting.

Plus, you are absolutely right people would make a fuss if it was different. Is there anything under the sun in D&D that people don't make a fuss over when it changes or stays the same?

[meltodowno]

Honestly, the main part I like about 5th is that it's a stripped down tool kit, not reams upon reams of charts for every eventuality.

"But what about (blank) sword?" choose the nearest approximate

[holygroundj]

So, you have two schools of thoughts for weapons, and Mearls talked about this back before the PHB came out.

The first school of thought is the idea that weapons have more properties than they do now, and that people choose weapons based on what mechanical advantages they offer to a player. The second school of thought is to make weapons generic, and allow people to choose a weapon that fits thematically with their PC concept.

They actually started in the first school, and you can see vestiges of it in the great sword. Mearls admitted that because of the interaction, great swords were just mechanically better than any other heavy weapon for non barbarian martial characters.

I'm not saying a simpler set of weapons is better than having mechanical advantages tied to specific weapons, but I find it's easier to houserule in those advantages, i.e. reskin current weapons, than it is to start with mechanically complex weapons not tied to class features.

I wouldn't be opposed to an unearthed arcana or something adding in weapon tactics, but I don't think 5e is missing anything to be sure.

[Talyn]

I was thinking about this myself, actually - basically, I'd like to see a few of the weapons in the PHB changed slightly to differentiate them from each other, and to make some of the weaker weapons more interesting.

The trident vs. spear example mentioned earlier is one, but another is the morning star and flail - there is absolutely no reason to use them instead of the rapier and warhammer, respectively. A rapier does the same amount of piercing damage, but is lighter and finesse. The warhammer and flail are mechanically identical, but the warhammer is also versatile.

Sure, you can argue that the two better weapons are a bit more expensive, but (unlike armor) in even the stingiest campaigns, a the price difference ceases to be significant after first level.

What I'd like to do is change the weapons a bit so that there is always a reason why someone might want to use each weapon, even if it's a minor one.

So, what to do with the morning star? Well, there are no one-handed weapons that do d10 damage, so boosting the damage to d10 would make it too obviously superior to it's peers. There are no Versatile piercing weapons, so perhaps it could be differentiated by being Versatile (d10) - essentially making it the Piercing equivalent to the Long Sword/War Hammer.

As for the flail, we can't make it versatile - the War Hammer already fills that niche. The "spiky ball on the end of a chain" may or may not have much basis in historical reality, so there isn't much actual use we can draw on to come up with a cool advantage for the flail. Perhaps we simply change the damage from 1d8 to 2d4. The extra .5 damage per hit makes it ever so slightly mechanically better than a warhammer if you never used the hammer's Versatile property - a fair trade-off.

If we wanted to be more complex (which goes against the push for elegant simplicity which is inherent in 5e) we could instead say that the advantage of using a flail is that the whipping ball is difficult to defend against with a shield. A defender with a shield is considered not wearing one when fighting by a flail user - besides the -2 penalty to AC they would suffer, they also cannot any reactive abilities that require the use of a shield (the Protection fighting style is the only thing that comes to mind right away, but there may be others).

[LordVonDerp]

First off, it's worth pointing out that there are dozens and dozens of magic weapons available in the DMG, along with some alternate weaponry from other "time periods."

But beyond that, it's just a question of design space, isn't it? 5e gives weapons a damage dice and then some pretty small riders, with more impactful combat effects requiring class features or feats. The game tends to think that the kind of PC you are should make a bigger difference than what you're wielding, as far as mundane weaponry goes; splashier effects are reserved for the game's giant library of magic weapons.



I'm trying to imagine someone swinging a 15 foot pole around in the kind of close-quarters combat one often sees in D&D. It'd be pretty wild, I'm sure! In terms of game balance though, that extra five feet in addition to PCs naturally hefting them with the help of the Polearm Master feat would probably really affect combat.

Just a balance thing to keep in mind, though. Tweaking this kind of thing at your table is super reasonable.

One does not SWING a pike. One charges ones enemies with a pike.

[Logosloki]

I was thinking about this myself, actually - basically, I'd like to see a few of the weapons in the PHB changed slightly to differentiate them from each other, and to make some of the weaker weapons more interesting.

The trident vs. spear example mentioned earlier is one, but another is the morning star and flail - there is absolutely no reason to use them instead of the rapier and warhammer, respectively. A rapier does the same amount of piercing damage, but is lighter and finesse. The warhammer and flail are mechanically identical, but the warhammer is also versatile.

Sure, you can argue that the two better weapons are a bit more expensive, but (unlike armor) in even the stingiest campaigns, a the price difference ceases to be significant after first level.

What I'd like to do is change the weapons a bit so that there is always a reason why someone might want to use each weapon, even if it's a minor one.

So, what to do with the morning star? Well, there are no one-handed weapons that do d10 damage, so boosting the damage to d10 would make it too obviously superior to it's peers. There are no Versatile piercing weapons, so perhaps it could be differentiated by being Versatile (d10) - essentially making it the Piercing equivalent to the Long Sword/War Hammer.

As for the flail, we can't make it versatile - the War Hammer already fills that niche. The "spiky ball on the end of a chain" may or may not have much basis in historical reality, so there isn't much actual use we can draw on to come up with a cool advantage for the flail. Perhaps we simply change the damage from 1d8 to 2d4. The extra .5 damage per hit makes it ever so slightly mechanically better than a warhammer if you never used the hammer's Versatile property - a fair trade-off.

If we wanted to be more complex (which goes against the push for elegant simplicity which is inherent in 5e) we could instead say that the advantage of using a flail is that the whipping ball is difficult to defend against with a shield. A defender with a shield is considered not wearing one when fighting by a flail user - besides the -2 penalty to AC they would suffer, they also cannot any reactive abilities that require the use of a shield (the Protection fighting style is the only thing that comes to mind right away, but there may be others).

This is part of what needs to be done to start with, small iterations. Like making unarmed attacks light (and tavern brawler giving finesse) so that you can give NPCs the ol' one-two in a brawl. Then they can add more broad category weapon feats (like how polearm mastery includes everything but spears and tridents for some reason) and make martial fighting styles, well, actual fighting styles.

One area I can think of is that some weapons could have two damage types that you can choose from. Things like a longsword being both slashing and piercing. Also, some kind of paragraph like the background paragraph which encourages you, the player to work with your DM to make up a weapon if there isn't one that fits your character thematically (like giving a short-sword the versatile property to make it into a Katana, if you wish for more historically accuracy). I know that many tables this will be a given (certainly at the tables I play and run) but sometimes people need a bit of a nudge so they feel like they can get creative.

[archaeo]

One does not SWING a pike. One charges ones enemies with a pike.

As I said above:


Oh, I know. But D&D doesn't do a great job of modeling "stand in place with several hundred other people while defending your lines with pikes," and whatnot.

Of course, I forgot to mention charging, too! Alas! Such a multifunctional weapon, the proud pike. :smallbiggrin:

[JAL_1138]

I still find it annoying that you can't stab with the spearpoint on the top of a halberd. Which, oftentimes, was the primary function, with the axe blade and rear hook being entirely secondary.

[Morty]

I'm not totally sure what you mean. There's a fair bit of range on the weapon table, from d4 to 2d6, and a handful of modifiers and damage types to further differentiate things. It's a small range, designed to be simple and easy to use. It gives you plenty of examples so that you can make quick decisions, but it's simple enough that modifying any given weapon to do what you want is an easily accomplished task.

I don't know, maybe that isn't "elegant" like a math proof or clever program executed in just a few lines, but it's pretty functional. Plus, it's basically bait for nerds like us to argue about, whether or not pikes should really be 1d10 2h reach weapons or not, etc., providing more grist for the D&D conversation mill! Win-win-win, from where I'm sitting.

Plus, you are absolutely right people would make a fuss if it was different. Is there anything under the sun in D&D that people don't make a fuss over when it changes or stays the same?

What I mean is that you could make it even easier by saying that light weapons deal d6, one-handed deal d8 and can be finessed, and two-handed deal 1d12 (or 2d6, doesn't really matter), with the option of reducing it to 1d10 in exchange for giving them reach. Then the players can go wild declaring what weapons they use with nothing getting in the way and there are no functionally identical weapons occupying separate boxes for no good reason. A separate discussion can be had about the possibility of two-handed weapons with the finesse property.

[Person_Man]

I would argue the opposite. There are far too many weapons in 5E. It would have been better if they had just listed damage amount by weapon qualities, and then let players choose what type of weapon fits the quality they want to use. That way players and DMs can use any weapon they can think of, without having to consult a long fiddly chart filled with many pointless/sub-optimal options.

[jazzymantis]

Making all the weapons very similar, like they've done, is what actually creates the trap options. Compare, for instance, the spear to the trident. They're very similar, of course, but the few differences they have all favor the spear: It's cheaper, it's lighter, and it's easier to use. The trident is a trap option. Make more ways in which weapons can differ, though, and there can be some other advantage to the trident. Maybe it's better at disarming, maybe it suffers fewer penalties when used underwater, whatever. Then it'd be a viable option for someone who wants to do those things. But those aren't ways in which 5e weapons can vary, so it's stuck with being a trap.

As a DM I quite enjoy there being truly worse options mechanically. I can do something such as give my players a silvered/magical sickle, then they would have to decide if they want to use the inferior weapon for its unique property.

[Doug Lampert]

Wouldn't a sword-cane be a rapier?

Historical rapiers are longer than most walking canes. But in fact, in a sword using culture, you are unlikely to be allowed to take a cane anywhere you can't take a sword. Canes are weapons too.


There's your problem! You don't swing a pike. :smallsmile:

But you also don't grip it at one end and poke it at people, you hold it with one hand at the balance point, so it gives about the same reach as a longspear.
You don't actually need a pike as a separate weapon listing.

[Magic Myrmidon]

As a DM I quite enjoy there being truly worse options mechanically. I can do something such as give my players a silvered/magical sickle, then they would have to decide if they want to use the inferior weapon for its unique property.

Seems more like you could just say that the unique property reduces the damage type, rather than requiring that the weapon is a sickle.