Talk:5e Weapons

Explosives

I'd recommend adding "Explosives" as a new, separate, category for weapons, along the lines of how firearms are presented. Especially since this category exists in the 5e DM guide for possible weapons to add. -lemiel14n3

Good idea, but let also put a Siege weapons category for big battles. Azernath (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (MST)

Exotic/Superior weapons

I'm thinking of something like Elven Thinblade (5e Equipment) and Elven Blade Master (5e Feat) to do exotic/superior type weapons. The weapon itself uses a martial weapon baseline, then you take can a feat to unlock the special stuff. Marasmusine (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2014 (MST)

Can't that already be done on a weapon-by-weapon basis, using the "special" tag?--Kydo (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (MST)

"Special. A weapon with the special property has unusual rules governing its use, explained in the weapon’s description (see “Special Weapons” later in this section)." -PHB. So, yeah. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (MST)

That doesn't work if the special would make the weapon overpowered. Marasmusine (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Monk weapons

I'd recommend making monk weapons just a simple list, and keeping the details and listings of the items in the general weapons page rather than giving them their own special listing. Or creating a new "Monk" property for weapons. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (MDT)

What about a rule variant for additional monk weapons with a category based list, then just slap a category on weapons intended to work with monks? Kydo (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

All simple weapons are monk weapons. The only use I can think of for making a Monk Weapon category is to give monks access to martial weapons (beyond shortsword). I am not keen on this. Monk's Spade is like a quarterstaff, but with reach. Marasmusine (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

Well my concern was that setting up a separate page makes monk weapons seem more special than they really deserve to be, and makes weapons put there less accessible. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

Are we talking about Monk Weapons (5e Other)? This page is just to demonstrate which PHB simple weapon can be used to emulate real-world martial art weapons: the weapons don't have pages of their own. I wanted to encourage not making pages for sai, tonfa, etc. Marasmusine (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

I thought of making a monk archetype that can use martial weapons, but it sounded to overpowered. Azernath (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

We could make them similar to the Oversized and Hidden weapons and give them their own rule written down. Azernath (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

Well, like I suggested, a "Monk" property would get the point across without taking up too much space. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

What I am saying is make each monk weapon separately and then add them to the weapons with the monk weapon properties. Azernath (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2015 (MDT)

No wrist/arm weapons

I have two guideline proposals:

• Reach weapons should always be martial. I think the reason why the PHB simple weapons are all non-reach is because of the monk's martial art's feature. Never mind, I just spotted that monk weapon's doesn't include two-handed weapons anyway.
• No wrist/arm weapons unless there's something functionally interesting about it. I've seen wrist swords, wrist daggers, wrist bows... look: we don't need every conceivable combination of strapping a weapon to your arm. It's functionally the same as a regular weapon: there are no core rules that interact with it (there aren't any monsters that can disarm you, for example). If the player wants to have a shortsword and say "it's strapped to me arm and I call it a wrist scythe", the DM will surely be OK with that. Marasmusine (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do you intend to see these guidelines used? --Green Dragon (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New sections

I believe this page would be improved if Category:April Fools weapons were put into a separate section, like what is currently done on the 5e Races page. - Guy (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2017 (MST)

A section for "Simple Ranged Weapon" under Renaissance Items would be nice, too. There is at least one example of such a weapon. (To me it seems like all these anachronistic weapon categories should be present on the page anyway, even if there isn't anything (yet) filling them.) - Guy (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Replace the current content of the page with this content, y/n?

If I don't get a response within a week or so, I'm just going to be bold^TM and do it. That is, unless someone locks the page again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Guy (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

I like your sandbox page. Its much easier to navigate, and will work great! --Green Dragon (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

Woop! You heard the boss Guy. --ConcealedLight (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

Naming Convention

I propose that we ask that new weapons be called by their English-language name (where available), so that we avoid having lots of pages for the same weapon that differ only by their regional name. One example I looked at today was the geodendag, which according to Wikipedia was known as the "spiked staff". Marasmusine (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2018 (MDT)

Typo

I'd just correct this myself, but the page is locked again. The link at the bottom of the page is broken, because it looks in Category:Weapons instead of Category:Weapon.

If an admin could simply remove an "s" from this, that would be great. See the bolded letter below:
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Weapons}} View recent changes for all nonmagical weapons]

Thanks in advance. - Guy (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2018 (MDT)

Add Instructions

The page is locked, but I believe it would be improved if "Add Instructions" were replaced with "5e Weapon Add Instructions" where appropriate. - Guy 13:20, 26 August 2018 (MDT)

Done. —ConcealedLight (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2018 (MDT)

Basically Just Reskins: A Rant

It's kind of annoying to see weapons that are just a reskin of another but with a different gold cost. What is the difference between a scimitar and a sabre really? Pretty much nothing at all except maybe hilt construction which changes nothing mechanically anyway. Another possibly baffling thing are mundane weapons that have properties or special features incongruous with either their description or basic physics. It's somewhat baffling why people decide a horse bow is different than a shortbow "because one is used on a horse so obviously the other never was (even though they're the same thing)", and therefore it's a new weapon. It seems like a lack of creativity honestly, and makes many of these weapons on here a bit redundant. Why keep them if another weapon in the phb can fill in for it? Just describe it in a different way, or use it in a different circumstance. Saying your rapier has a hatchet-point won't make your DM say "ackchually you don't have a backsword from the homebrew, so you can't have a hatchet point", and saying you want to use your shortbow on horseback won't cause a disturbance at your table because "technically it's not a 'horse bow' so you might have some penalties". I feel the homebrewing of weapons should be for truly unique weapons, or justifiably niche weapons. Like the difference between a rapier and scottish broadsword. Similar designs in terms of hilt construction (at least being fully or mostly closed and single-handed) and blade length. The difference is that a broadsword was typically used for cutting (and sometimes thrusting) while a rapier was typically used for thrusting (and rarely cutting). There I could see a difference at least in damage type, but the difference between an arming sword and a short sword is an oxymoron; they're the same thing. Similar blade length, both used for stabbing (depending on fighting style), and a single handed grip. There is no reason for either to have different properties than another. All blades of an approximately similar length, handedness, and curvature will likely perform similarly, but you get some homebrew weapons saying "oh it's a bit pointier of a short blade, SO 2D4 DAMAGE" as opposed to 1d6 which would be more reasonable. PunnyDM12 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2018 (MST)

The magic about the wiki is that if you don't like something you can almost always do something about it. For example, I didn't like how the 5e Epic Boons were full of nonsense so I spent a few days looking through them all and either fixing or marking them for maintenance. If you'd like to do the same with the 5e weapons section then by all means go for it - BE BOLD. Good luck and if you need any help just drop me a line. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Of very important note, is that redundant weapons should only be added on Weapon Alternatives (5e Other). Should we add a link to this page here? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2018 (MST)

I think that would be beneficial, yes. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:55, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Do y'all reckon there should be a Weapon Design guide? Kinda like the 5e Class Design Guide? I was looking through the weapons, and landed on the ol' weeb stick (katana) and checked the discussion. Apparently the arguement for the katana to have finesse property was because of the fighting style used with it, and I don't think some people realize the weapon properties are about the weapon not the person or technique used with the weapon. The properties determine weapon function, your character determines the flavor of that function. If you're well trained in a back-alley style of fighting or a militarized style of fighting, your shortsword is still that: a shortsword. It can't change it's physics because you fight differently. It stabs the same (assuming you have comparable strength to one another) across the board. This might also become apparent when a character picks up a weapon that has a different historical fighting style and "suddenly I can't swing this sword super goodly, dang it". Additionally, some weapons have alternate properties because "in history these were use for this, so it gets a bonus on doing that". The weapon shouldn't magically change propeties because of something like "this weapon was used to kill horses in battle, so that must mean horses are vulnerable to it" or "they take an additional 1d8 damage". Use in history does not necessarily define the function of a weapon, or rather correlation is not causation. I feel a Weapon Design Guide might help with repetitive weapons (such as the cestus, and brass knuckles, and gauntlets, and paladin gauntlets, and weaponized gaintlets, etc.), weapon alternatives (such as any arming sword effectively being a shortsword, I mean come on, mate they're the same thing... they stab and are one-handed, kinda medium-length swords), weapon properties (what defines these properties (and the properties defining the weapon not the person) though that might be a tad tricky), and improvised weapons; I don't believe items with a primary focus other than combat should be considered actual weapons. A cane is used to help you walk, not hunt dragons. PunnyDM12 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2018 (MST)

I believe a weapon design guide is covered by the much larger in scope Equipment Design (5e Guideline). —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2018 (MST)

Sortable Tables

On the basis that it would be helpful for users interested in the statistics of weapons at a glance, I propose that the tables be made sortable. This would allow you to view weapons by cost, damage, weight, etc. Does anyone object? Quincy (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Not at all. It is very reasonable that people would use sortable tables for equipment items. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Go for it. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2018 (MST)

OK, I did it! Quincy (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2018 (MST)

A potential solution to the whole re-skin thing

I'm not entirely sure how this will work in practice, but I've been noticing how a lot of weapons just do the same thing over and over and I have an idea. I haven't tested this at all (mostly because I want to hear someone's opinion), but hear me out: how would you react to weapons that have a set amount of damage, like instead of rolling 1d8 you just get the average of 4? The reason this is so weird is because modifiers already have a set amount of damage you do alongside that damage. However, this would also add a lot more possibilities for weapons, as long as people see the automatic benefits. For example, a weapon that has a base damage of 1d4+2 has an average of 4 damage, like a long sword (1d8), but a minimum of 3. Please respond with your thoughts on if this is a good or bad idea. Seriously, I have no idea if this is workable or not. PickleJarPete (talk)

I am inclined to think that the variant rule wouldn't be that fun for pc's to use because rolling dice is fun and dealing a flat amount of damage makes D&D seem more like a strategy game where everything should/can be planned out, where that isn't the point of playing D&D. That said, I do sometimes use average damage when I am controlling a ton of monsters while DMing and it would greatly speed up combat to use average damage.--Blobby383b (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2019 (MDT)

Weapon Lists

This page is currently lacking a way to view the handful of weapon lists on the wiki (Lightsabers (5e Equipment), Bloodborne Weaponry (5e Equipment), Sci-Fi Weapons (5e Equipment)). As each has the 5e, weapon, and list categories, making a sub-page shouldn't be difficult, but as this page is admin only, we can not add a link to such a page. --Ref3rence (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2020 (MDT)