Are 5e Weapons too simple?

[CrazyCrab]

Hi everyone,
was wondering what you think - personally I feel like 5e weapons are really bland, but I was hoping for some input. I've been working on a home-brew armoury, but now when I look at the list I sort of feel like they're too complicated.

I mean, at my table, as it is, these are the only 'weapons' people ever use:
- Handaxe
- Javelin
- Quarterstaff
- Shortbow
AND
- '1d8 one handed of choice, versatile'
- Shortsword / Scmitar
- Greatsword / Greatmaul
- Rapier
- '1d10 reach of choice'
- Crossbow, Hand
- Crossbow, Heavy
- Longbow

While you have the occasional whip, lance or some other gimmick they other weapons may as well not exist outside magic items... what's the point of a flail when a war-hammer, an arbitrarily better weapon is available? Who on earth uses a greatclub when you can just use a quarterstaff for infinitely better results? Or a light hammer when a handaxe is just straight up better? Or a sickle? That weapon is terrible, even when compared to a dagger.

Yes, maybe the 5gp will sting at the start, but outside level 1 the players should really have no problem picking whatever nonmagical weapons they want.

So, what do you think?

I've been trying to make every single weapon in my booklet useful (with features like concealable, bleeding, parry or alternative damage types... yet I do slowly feel like it may be a bit too much)

[RumoCrytuf]

Try having situations where players need to use other weapons. For example, the players want to enter a city. City law dictates that no "weapons" outside of whips and farm tools may be brought into the city or they're only allowed certain weapons inside said city. If the players want to try and sneak a weapon in, all the better for play. I like what you're doing with all weapons having different uses. I'll have to scry a page or two from your book. :P

[mgshamster]

The first thing I did was look up who gets special weapons. Dwarves and Elves for races, and Druid, sorc, and wiz for classes (everyone else gets at least all simple weapons). I initially suspected that there'd be a race/class combo where one of your "Unoptimized" weapons would actually be the most optimized choice. That hypothesis was wrong.

So I next looked at the weapons specifically called out:

Great club vs quarterstaff

This is entirely flavor. Do you want a quarterstaff - a thinner rod of wood (sometimes with metal tips) that you can use back and forth, or do you want a large hunk of wood that swings like a baseball bat? Great clubs are also a typical ogre/hill giant Weapon. So big dumb creatures/characters may prefer this weapon over the quarterstaff.

Mechanically, the only difference is the quarterstaff is a little lighter and has the option to be used one handed in combat (you can always let go with one hand on a two handed weapon for object interactions, you just can't hold something and fight at the same time). So the quarterstaff has more flexibility, but t doesn't match the right flavor for certain creatures/characters.

flail vs warhammer

Flavor plays a huge part here as well. A flail might be used by a farmer, whereas a hammer may be used by a carpenter or a blacksmith.

Mechanically, warhammers have the option of being used two handed for extra damage. Flail has nothing to add. Physically, flails can often swing around object (like shields) to get someone, but can also risk swinging around to hit yourself on the head. The rope/chain of the flail can be used in clever ways, like wrapping around someone's neck to choke them. For the above reasons, flails are banned as weapons in the SCA for combat tournaments and reenactment.

Light Hammer vs Handaxe

Here we have our first mechanical reason for picking one over the other: damage type. There are two differences between these weapons, the damage type (bludgeoning vs slashing) and damage (d4 vs d6).

If a creature has resistence to slashing, but not bludgeoning, the light hammer is better (1-4 damage vs 1-3). Additionally, the light hammer is the only bludgeoning thrown weapon in the game.

In game example: skeletons have vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons. That axe is doing 1-6 damage. The inferior light hammer is doing 2-8 damage.

sickle vs dagger

Another big one for flavor. D&D history has the Druid using a sickle - especially in the Druid artwork throughout D&D history. It's also one of the weapons that all Druids use. Since the sickle, like the flail, is a farming tool, you may see characters with a farming history use it.

Mechanically, there are differences. Daggers are piercing weapons where sickles are slashing weapons. An opponent with resistence or immunity to piecing, but not slashing, may have you preferring to use a sickle over a dagger.

Here, a more important question may be 'why use a sickle over a Handaxe'? A sickle is a slashing light d4, a Handaxe is a slashing light thrown d6. Well, Druids don't get handaxes (unless they're a dwarf), so you may see a Druid prefer a sickle over a Handaxe.

In game example: a DM may rule that a piercing weapon can't quickly cut a rope while a slashing weapon could.

==========================

Conclusion:

Some of these weapons may see less frequent use, but they're aimed at certain types of characters. From an optimization stand point, I think the only truly valid complaint is the flail.

With the flail, you might want to also make that versatile, like the warhammer, and then make the difference between them be one of flavor.

2e Optional Rule: back in 2nd edition, some weapons did more or less damage to some types of armor. Bludgeoning weapons were good against flexible armors like chain, piercing weapons were good against plate armors, slashing weapons were good against leathers and hides. You could give advantage for those types of weapons against those types of armors (which also makes some magical weapons, like the sun sword, not gain advantage to any type of armor).

[D.U.P.A.]

Some weapons may be much easier to produce, like clubs, which is basically any sufficient piece of wood. Then other may be used as tools, like sickle for a farmer, light hammer for a smith, axe for a lumberjack, pick for a miner. So other than weapons, they can serve also as tools. Shovels should be categorized as weapons too (notable use in ww1).

[MrStabby]

At my table my fix was to introduce 3rd edition style exotic weapons and to move some weapons to exotic.

Quarterstaves (unchanged)
Nets (no penalty for using in 5ft of an enemy, can use dex)
Scimitar (extended critical range)
Flail (no attack roll, enemy makes dex save instead vs attack stat)
Sickle (d4 damage, con save (vs choice of int, wis, cha) or keep taking damage till save is made)
Trident (d6/d10 damage, polearm, versatile, 10ft reach)
Blowpipe (add double stat bonus to damage if attack was made with advantage)

and new weapons:

Scythe (triple dice on critical d12 damage die)
Bastard Sword (d10 damage 1 handed, d12 two handed)
Chain ((not certain this is quite balanced right) d6 damage two handed finesse weapon)
Torch (d4 fire damage on a hit from attack action may use a bonus action to force a con save. On a fail target is blinded for one round)

There were a couple of others but these were the main ones. They are all more powerful than the basic weapons but the only two ways to gain proficiency with them is to take the feat that lets you select weapons to be proficient in (and it lets you grab from these as part of your choice) or to be a blade pact warlock and to pick up one of these as your pact weapon. This does push a bit towards fighters who get extra ASIs, Rogues who tend to be SAD and get one extra ASI and also want to be in close combat and Blade pact warlocks who tend to be less played at my tables than blastlocks. Also druids get the scimitar for free explicitly - now a slight boost to melee whilst in humanoid form if that is how they wish to fight (and if they done want shillelagh)

Wizards, clerics and sorcerers tend to not want to improve melee damage so much, at least with a single attack; barbarians, monks, paladins all need to pump so many different stats they haven't really taken these.

Possibly these could be worth it for valour bards but I haven't seen it. So far only a couple of players have dipped in. I am not saying this is right but it has worked for our table - the armoury is a little different to normal and characters feel a little more distinct.

[NNescio]

sickle vs dagger

Another big one for flavor. D&D history has the Druid using a sickle - especially in the Druid artwork throughout D&D history. It's also one of the weapons that all Druids use. Since the sickle, like the flail, is a farming tool, you may see characters with a farming history use it.

Mechanically, there are differences. Daggers are piercing weapons where sickles are slashing weapons. An opponent with resistence or immunity to piecing, but not slashing, may have you preferring to use a sickle over a dagger.

Here, a more important question may be 'why use a sickle over a Handaxe'? A sickle is a slashing light d4, a Handaxe is a slashing light thrown d6. Well, Druids don't get handaxes (unless they're a dwarf), so you may see a Druid prefer a sickle over a Handaxe.

In game example: a DM may rule that a piercing weapon can't quickly cut a rope while a slashing weapon could.

Druids have scimitar proficiency though. It's even a Finesse-able weapon, and Druids are likely to dump strength anyway. Granted, the scimitar a martial weapon, but they have the proficiency anyway.

[Zman]

Overall I feel like 5e weapons are good, there are a couple of problems that weren't balanced quite right.

Greatclub should have been a d10.

Light Hammer should have been a d6.

Mace should have been a d8.

Sickle should have been a d6. Still sucks but is dirt cheap.

Flail should have been combined with Morningstar as a Bludgeoning or Piercing.

Trident should have been d8 versatile d10.


If you make the couple of small tweaks that are needed, it is actually quite balanced and all weapons are effectively viable with only a few situations where something is clearly superior. I also add an Elven Longsword that is a d6 Slashing, Light, Finesse, Versatile(d8) to give a d8 finesse slashing weapon and fits the katana weapon Archtype. Could also make it a Finesse D8 Slashing.

[mgshamster]

Druids have scimitar proficiency though. It's even a Finesse-able weapon, and Druids are likely to dump strength anyway. Granted, the scimitar a martial weapon, but they have the proficiency anyway.

True. You even get the option to start with one, so the price isn't really an issue. I was just trying to find *any* reason to take the sickle over the dagger. Not many reasons why, other than flavor. Perhaps you want a slashing weapons that's easily concealed? I'm stretching, here.

[NNescio]

True. You even get the option to start with one, so the price isn't really an issue. I was just trying to find *any* reason to take the sickle over the dagger. Not many reasons why, other than flavor. Perhaps you want a slashing weapons that's easily concealed? I'm stretching, here.

Well, if the player is the sort who is really into 'historical accuracy", he might insist on using a sickle, which also happens to be a ritual implement used by actual Celtic druids, instead of a scimitar from the Middle East. So yeah, flavor. Could also be carried when disguised as a peasant, like you said.

(I personally carried it around when roleplaying a communist Druid, 'though I hardly had a chance to use it in combat because of my 8 Str.)

Seriously, why do Druids get scimitar proficiency anyway (other than 'game balance' to give them an okayish martial weapon)? Is it supposed to be a stand-in for some sort of improved sickle?

[mgshamster]

Well, if the player is the sort who is really into 'historical accuracy", he might insist on using a sickle, which also happens to be a ritual implement used by actual Celtic druids, instead of a scimitar from the Middle East. So yeah, flavor. Could also be carried when disguised as a peasant, like you said.

(I personally carried it around when roleplaying a communist Druid, 'though I hardly had a chance to use it in combat because of my 8 Str.)

Seriously, why do Druids get scimitar proficiency anyway (other than 'game balance' to give them an okayish martial weapon)? Is it supposed to be a stand-in for some sort of improved sickle?

They could use it in 2e. I don't remember it in 1e, so I did some digging. They could in 1e, but not in OD&D (Original D&D). Instead, they could use a crescent shaped sword (I believe to replicate the crescent moon). Most players in the 70s and 80s automatically associated that with the scimitar.

This here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70527/why-do-druids-use-scimitars) is one of the better explanations I found.

In that link, they found a quote from Gygax himself:


Quote Originally Posted by Heathansson
Hello, Colonel! Hope you're feeling better!!! Just a question that stretches back down the eons to 1e.: why do druids use scimitars? It just seems curious with the Celtic connection.

Heh, It is because the scimitar is as close a sword weapon I could come up with to match the druids' mistletoe-harvesting sickle. Cheers, Gary

[Logosloki]

Weapons are on the simple side mechanically but I don't mind it so much.

There are a lot of flavour choices on the table which is great from an RP perspective but redundant from a crunch point of view. At least it isn't 15 shades of polearm (which is fun but cumbersome).

[Laserlight]

I'd just refluff weapons. Want a rapier but don't qualify for proficiency? Get a d6 finesse weapon and call it a light rapier. Or call it an elven shortspear. Heck, call it Bob if you want.