Mostly in the fact that there is a lack of need for diversity.  If the DMs I've played with bothered with weapon damage (so you don't have a knucklehead breaking down a door with their longsword) or if the monsters had more need for different damage types (B/P/S) then I'd say there's more need.  I always pack one of each on every character I play but often the daggers and hand axes are there as tools not weapons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

I wouldn't want all melee weapons to deal 1d6 damage. For my game I'm mostly fine with varying the dice between d4 (daggers, clubs) up to 2d6 (longswords, and two-handed axes and hammers). For two-handed spears and polearms, we do 1d10 but let them make a single free attack against someone trying to run up and stab you in melee. So, some variation but not a whole lot. Been considering adding a bit more, maybe about as complex as what estar linked but I'm curious what the typical D&D player would like to see.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

Quote from: tenbones;1059033I think 1e/2e supported more granularity.

I think 5e doesn't but could.

5e does support differences among the listed weapons:

• short sword and spear do piercing damage; mace and hammer do bludgeoning; handaxe is slashing.
• short sword is finesse, so you can use DEX instead of STR with it (and it's a rogue weapon, but also martial and not simple).
• spear, handaxe and light hammer can be thrown.
• spear is versatile (use two hands to get d8 damage instead).
• short sword, handaxe and light hammer are light weapons (better for two weapon fighting).
• light hammer does only d4; there's a war hammer that is martial, does d8, and is versatile (d10 if used two handed).

I'm OK with a fairly simple categorization of weapons; but OD&D with d6 for everything was too simple, and the only advantage of being able to use a sword was that there were more and better magical swords than other kinds of weapon. I don't need the huge number of polearms, but if you add them in then the holy water sprinkler should do extra damage against undead.

I find the 5e list too bloated.

For Example:  Why is a spear and trident two different things, when they have the same states.  Except for weight and cost?  You could combine a lot of them into one category, like Long Swords, Battle Axe, Warhammer, the only difference is that the Hammer is a Bludgeoning weapon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059089I find the 5e list too bloated.

For Example:  Why is a spear and trident two different things, when they have the same states.  Except for weight and cost?  You could combine a lot of them into one category, like Long Swords, Battle Axe, Warhammer, the only difference is that the Hammer is a Bludgeoning weapon.

I agree that it is bloated. I think they're just trying to keep some of the detail and style of the AD&D rules. For comparison, in AD&D1, here were the spear and trident stats:

Spear: weight 40 - 60gp, damage 1-6 vs S/M, damage 1-8 vs L, with note: This weapon also does twice the damage indicated to any opponent when the weapon is set to receive their charge.
   length 5-13 feet, space required 1 foot, speed factor 6-8, AC adjustments -2/-1/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0

Trident: weight 50gp, damage 2-7 vs S/M, damage 3-12 vs L, with no note
  length 4-8 feet, space required 1 foot, speed factor 6-8, AC adjustments -3/-2/-1/-1/0/0/+1/0/+1


I find it strange that tridents can't be set against charge, but for some reason do massively more damage against large creatures. These are mechanically differentiated, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't follow the logic of how one assigns these stats.

I've used this system for many years:

D2:   very small weapons

D4:   small weapons

D6:   medium weapons

D8:   large one-handed weapons

D10: large two-handed weapons

It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.

Quote from: Elfdart;1059092I've used this system for many years:

D2:   very small weapons

D4:   small weapons

D6:   medium weapons

D8:   large one-handed weapons

D10: large two-handed weapons

It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.

Perfect.

Quote from: jhkim;1059091I find it strange that tridents can't be set against charge, but for some reason do massively more damage against large creatures. These are mechanically differentiated, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't follow the logic of how one assigns these stats.

Shorter Length and a narrower blade (thus weaker) blade, and because there were three blade was clumsy to wield. In short while it was kinda of used like a spear it was worse to use than a spear.

The reason the trident was developed in the first place was as a fishing tool. To compensate for the refraction of light through water when spear fishing. The only time it was used in battle was in Roman Gladiatorial combat where it was combined with a nets for a specific style of combat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

A great deal depends on what the rest of the system is like. I use varied weapon damage but I think reach is much more important than damage. That is why knives of various types are problematic, not because they do less damage. But the guy with the sword or club can keep you from ever reaching her by injuring or killing you before you can get there. That is also why the spear usually beats the sword because you pretty much never get there if you have the sword and are not at some other advantage. the advantage of the sword is that you can wear it and the spear must be carried.

Suspension of disbelief trumps simplicity in my mind. And finding ways to overcome a reach disadvantage or to keep your reach advantage makes combat more interesting.

Quote from: estar;1059104The reason the trident was developed in the first place was as a fishing tool. To compensate for the refraction of light through water when spear fishing.

Giving the trident +1 to hit versus displacer beasts, for anyone who must have a mechanical differentiation in 5e.

I'm on board with a shorter list of weapons, while allowing players to describe the same weapon as something exotic. (Like under the Monk description.) Small, medium and large are a little too short a list, though.

Quote from: rawma;1059172Giving the trident +1 to hit versus displacer beasts, for anyone who must have a mechanical differentiation in 5e.

I'm on board with a shorter list of weapons, while allowing players to describe the same weapon as something exotic. (Like under the Monk description.) Small, medium and large are a little too short a list, though.

To clarify my earlier preference for small/medium/large, there could be other specifiers on it. I picture more something like:

Trident (large piercing reach set quality) - this is a large iron 8-foot trident that can be set against charge

Hunting spear (large piercing reach set) - this is a 6-foot spear with a crossbar for boar-hunting

Iklwa (medium piercing) - this is a 4-foot broad-bladed spear used for close combat

There can be flavoring to different types of spears, but the damage and stats are standardized.

I prefer a short list (around a dozen) of differentiated weapons, but something bland like "all weapons do 1d6" is better than a more detailed list that gets the details wrong. It's too distracting to have obsolete and incorrect weapon details based on Victorian misunderstandings (one-handed swords weighed 8+ pounds and were hardly sharp) or propaganda (longbows could shoot through a tank covered in katanas).

Always had a thing for mancatchers...  Its like a bear trap. On a stick.

Quote from: Elfdart;1059092I've used this system for many years:

D2:   very small weapons

D4:   small weapons

D6:   medium weapons

D8:   large one-handed weapons

D10: large two-handed weapons

It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.

Quote from: jhkim;1059175To clarify my earlier preference for small/medium/large, there could be other specifiers on it. I picture more something like:

Trident (large piercing reach set quality) - this is a large iron 8-foot trident that can be set against charge

Hunting spear (large piercing reach set) - this is a 6-foot spear with a crossbar for boar-hunting

Iklwa (medium piercing) - this is a 4-foot broad-bladed spear used for close combat

There can be flavoring to different types of spears, but the damage and stats are standardized.

I would have preferred this for D&D weapons in general.  A chart for damage, another for tags, and then you can describe it as you like, and price it as needed.  Like these two suggestions.

I prefer a smaller list of weapons with some significant differences. I don't see the need for so many different swords, for example. I don't have a "normal" sword, short sword, two-handed sword, and dagger. I usually just have daggers and swords. I like Gygax, but I don't share the polearm fetish he had. Just spears and poleaxes are enough for me.

For mechanical differences I like there to be interesting variation. Swords in my games are usually pretty expensive and not something common folk carry around, so, I'm willing to give them even a +1 to hit bonus along with their d6 damage. Axes I give a higher base damage to, but no accuracy bonus.

I find that if you keep magic items much rarer than the D&D norm, you can give weapons some significant differentiation without any significant balance issues. Also, I keep money significantly more scarce and high quality weapons (even non-magical ones) a lot more expensive. A sword might do 1d6 damage, +1 to hit, and deals max damage when hitting on a 19-20, but it will cost 100 or more silver coins (my game's basic currency). A simple ax may only cost 10 silver coins, but it might just deal 1d8 damage with no other special properties.