Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Except the momentum of the charge is primarily a non-factor, outside of a few beast blocks. And D&D isn’t set up to accommodate a creature impaling itself during a charge.

 Sure, but there's nothing pike-specific there.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Except the momentum of the charge is primarily a non-factor, outside of a few beast blocks. And D&D isn’t set up to accommodate a creature impaling itself during a charge.

 Sure, but there's nothing pike-specific there.

 
No, but as I previously said there’s already a feat and a maneuver that covers the general “injuring them when they enter your threatened area” concept. In general, if there’s something you “should” be able to do with a weapon, it’s covered by a maneuver.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Except the momentum of the charge is primarily a non-factor, outside of a few beast blocks. And D&D isn’t set up to accommodate a creature impaling itself during a charge.

 Sure, but there's nothing pike-specific there.

 
No, but as I previously said there’s already a feat and a maneuver that covers the general “injuring them when they enter your threatened area” concept. In general, if there’s something you “should” be able to do with a weapon, it’s covered by a maneuver.

 Exactly this. Most of the ideas in this thread that are not reflavors add way to much for a base weapon. They could work as magic items, class features or feats, and as you point out a lot of them already exist.

We’re missing Simple Reach weapons: Heavy, 2-Handed and Reach, but with a d8 damage die (on the basis that Simple weapons usually have a damage die one size smaller than their martial equivalents). Perhaps a “long spear” for piercing (with Push mastery in 2024) and a “bill” for slashing (with Topple). I’m sure better names could be proposed. 

More Finesse weapons would be nice. In our Dragonlance campaign, our Paladin wields a “sabre”: a slashing rapier, essentially for a change of flavour. A Simple Finesse weapon that isn’t Light (doing d6) would provide an extra option. 

Sure, but that isn't really a problem though? Polearm master is already a powerful feat and you can achieve the wanted effect if you combine with sentinel.

Just giving base weapons more stuff because it would be nice isn't good game design, it's just power creep.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from ThelenyiWhinlaw >>

We’re missing Simple Reach weapons: Heavy, 2-Handed and Reach, but with a d8 damage die (on the basis that Simple weapons usually have a damage die one size smaller than their martial equivalents). Perhaps a “long spear” for piercing (with Push mastery in 2024) and a “bill” for slashing (with Topple). I’m sure better names could be proposed. 

More Finesse weapons would be nice. In our Dragonlance campaign, our Paladin wields a “sabre”: a slashing rapier, essentially for a change of flavour. A Simple Finesse weapon that isn’t Light (doing d6) would provide an extra option. 

 

Spear should have reach when used two handed. 

 
That's going to depend on the spear, though.

A "regular" spear is generally only 5 to 6 feet long (shoulder height), and won't have reach.  A longer spear would (and I would totally grant it) so it is going to depend on how someone defines "spear" in their game (because my number for length is not in the rules, lol).

This is when the Polearm class comes into play a lot of the time in straight 5e -- they are the "longer" weapons.

I use a Javelin/Spear/Lance approach (short, regular, long) myself, and I do give lances the reach property. Newer players are often confused at first (they thnk of lances in a very limited way) but then branch beyond it.

I also have thrown spears as javelins, pretty much always.

It's not new weapons, but the mace and greatclub need to be overhauled so that there's an actual reason to use either of them instead of a staff.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

It's not new weapons, but the mace and greatclub need to be overhauled so that there's an actual reason to use either of them instead of a staff.

 
I presume you mean mechanically, and in that case, why?

Just seems pointless to have three weapons of the same damage type and proficiency when one of those weapons does everything that both of the others do and is better by virtue of being both cheaper and offering more options..

The Weapon Masteries help with that; Greatclub is Push, Mace is Sap, Quarterstaff is Topple.

Pretty sure both club and greatclub are in the category of "not meant to be used by PCs"

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Ecove >>

Sure, but that isn't really a problem though? Polearm master is already a powerful feat and you can achieve the wanted effect if you combine with sentinel.

Just giving base weapons more stuff because it would be nice isn't good game design, it's just power creep.

 

It isn't 'just giving' though. It is an actual spear strategy. And to use it, the enemy has to actually be charging you. 

Except 5e has been keeping combat simple, and so it's unlikely they'll create a whole series of rules to quantify what constitutes "charging" and how one braces for that charge.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from ThelenyiWhinlaw >>

We’re missing Simple Reach weapons: Heavy, 2-Handed and Reach, but with a d8 damage die (on the basis that Simple weapons usually have a damage die one size smaller than their martial equivalents). Perhaps a “long spear” for piercing (with Push mastery in 2024) and a “bill” for slashing (with Topple). I’m sure better names could be proposed. 

More Finesse weapons would be nice. In our Dragonlance campaign, our Paladin wields a “sabre”: a slashing rapier, essentially for a change of flavour. A Simple Finesse weapon that isn’t Light (doing d6) would provide an extra option. 

 

Spear should have reach when used two handed. 

 
That's going to depend on the spear, though.

A "regular" spear is generally only 5 to 6 feet long (shoulder height), and won't have reach.  A longer spear would (and I would totally grant it) so it is going to depend on how someone defines "spear" in their game (because my number for length is not in the rules, lol).

This is when the Polearm class comes into play a lot of the time in straight 5e -- they are the "longer" weapons.

I use a Javelin/Spear/Lance approach (short, regular, long) myself, and I do give lances the reach property. Newer players are often confused at first (they thnk of lances in a very limited way) but then branch beyond it.

I also have thrown spears as javelins, pretty much always.

 

Polearm Mastery does work with a spear, so they are classified as polearms. And the feat is pretty silly because it seems to think you would be wielding the spear like a quarterstaff rather than as a thrusting weapon. For thrusting, why would you be holding a spear that close to the middle?  When it is a 6' thrusting weapon, it is going to have more reach than a 3' cutting weapon. 

 
Well, in terms of actual use, in order to have effective thrusting power, you do have to hold it in the middle. Holding along one end without bracing it within the center third will reduce effective damage and power. So in that sense, it still remains within the 5' boundary. That's an underlying presumption necessary to the mechanic, but that would by why. Holding it along the bottom third makes it a staff in that sense (and still not a very effective one).

That's why I moved to the three part system. You have a versatile thrown, a melee, and a polearm. Not saying anyone else has to do it that way,  just saying how I see it.

All of which is why I said it depends on the spear. There are a lot of odd little things that go with this -- space, size, knowledge versus perception, facing, and such.

Mostly, though, it is because they just have 'spear'. And spears come in about a thousand sizes and shapes, lol.

Quote from Ecove >>

Sure, but that isn't really a problem though? Polearm master is already a powerful feat and you can achieve the wanted effect if you combine with sentinel.

Just giving base weapons more stuff because it would be nice isn't good game design, it's just power creep.

 
not certain I agree with this.

I mean, D&D has never been able to satisfy everyone with how they set up weapons, so this is a pretty standard argument, but it usually isn't "because it would be nice", it is because the weapons are different, and they are different because in real world situations they had a reason to exist and purpose in those shapes, form, and uses.

And for some people those differences make things more fun, and give the game they are in greater verisimilitude, improving immersion and empowering the core fantasy.

Good game design seeks to do exactly those things. Poor game design interferes with such things. The reason they opted to simplify was that there were a gazillion weapons who varied only a little from each other mechanically -- but they probably didn't do a lot of interrogating of the underlying concepts for those weapons, and odds are pretty good a lot of the made the same general mistakes that most folks make (and by most, I mean the vast and overwhelming majority of folks).

As an example, a Pike is a hammer polearm. But most folks -- including several in this thread -- think of it as a piercing weapon because a Pike has a pointy thing on the side opposite the hammer, and fantasy books have talked about how the pikemen would punch holes in the armor of enemies, and blah blah

and so folks who have never held a pike, let alone tried to use one, let alone trained in using one, are going to do the blind men describing an elephant thing.

That will feed into the game design. It doesn't fit the ethos of 5e to say "I use my pike to crush their skull" and then say "i use my pike to pierce through the armor" because the game doesn't approach combat in that way. But giving a Pike a bit of versatility (bludgeoning damage, piercing damage) dos fit the ethos and design strategy. 

That isn't power creep, that's following the purpose of the tool and incorporating it into the rules.

40 freaking years of these arguments, and the end result is always going to be "what works for your tables" -- but that isn't poor game design or power creep either, and power creep is not the same as "not good" design -- some designs seek power creep (they call it advancement, after all).

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Pretty sure both club and greatclub are in the category of "not meant to be used by PCs"

 

Club is there as an improvised weapon

 It’s there as a valid subject for Shillelagh, too. 

P.S. And the Great Club should have a d10 damage die! 

Quote from ThelenyiWhinlaw >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Pretty sure both club and greatclub are in the category of "not meant to be used by PCs"

 

Club is there as an improvised weapon

 It’s there as a valid subject for Shillelagh, too. 

P.S. And the Great Club should have a d10 damage die! 

Query: Why should a great club have a d10 damage?

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Query: Why should a great club have a d10 damage?

Because that's the pattern seen elsewhere: a two-handed heavy weapon gets one upgrade step (die type upgrade or reach) over a versatile weapon held in two hands.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Pretty sure both club and greatclub are in the category of "not meant to be used by PCs"

 If they're not meant to be used by PCs, why are they taking up space in the Player's Handbook?

I'd say it's more that they're in the table for when players grab an improvised weapon.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Query: Why should a great club have a d10 damage?

Because that's the pattern seen elsewhere: a two-handed heavy weapon gets one upgrade step (die type upgrade or reach) over a versatile weapon held in two hands.

 
Well, the great club is a step up from the Club, which does d4, and is less powerful than the 2d6 maul. So, I would say it fits that pattern.